Patterns of directional asymmetry in the pelvis and pelvic canal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The human pelvis is unique among modern taxa for supporting both parturition of large brained young and obligate bipedalism. Though much work has focused on pelvic development and variation, little work has explored the presence or absence of asymmetry in the pelvis despite well-known patterns of asymmetry in other skeletal regions. This study investigated whether patterns of directional asymmetry (DA) could be observed in the pelvis or pelvic canal. METHODS: Seventeen bilaterally paired osteometric measurements of the os coxae (34 measures in total) were taken from 128 skeletons (female n = 65, male n = 63) from recent human populations in five geographic regions. Paired sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to investigate DA. RESULTS: Results from a pooled sample of all individuals showed that the pelvis exhibited a left-bias in DA. In contrast, the pelvic canal exhibited a pattern in which the anterior canal exhibited a right-bias and the posterior canal exhibited a left-bias. Neither sex nor populational differences in DA were observed in the pelvis or pelvic canal. CONCLUSIONS: The varying patterns of asymmetry uncovered here accord with prior work and may indicate that loading from the trunk and legs place differing stresses on the pelvis and canal, yielding these unequal asymmetries. However, this is speculative and the possible influence of genetics, biomechanics, and nutritional status on the development of pelvic and canal asymmetries presents a rich area for future study. Additionally, the potential influence of pelvic canal asymmetry on obstetric measures of pelvic capacity merits future research. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 28:804-810, 2016. © 2016Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".