Evolutionary implications of sexual dimorphism in the human midcarpal joint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research has revealed significant size differences between human male and female carpal bones but it is unknown if there are significant shape differences as well. Since humans have a relatively low degree of body mass dimorphism, differences in shape would not be expected but, if present, may (1) represent a phylogenetic retention from our more sexually‐dimorphic evolutionary relatives or (2) imply subtle functional differences in the male and female wrist. This study investigated allometry and shape variation in carpals in extant hominoids. We found that the human midcarpal joint displayed twice as many significantly sexually dimorphic shape variables compared to other hominoids. Human midcarpal morphology was generally great ape‐like, not solely Pan ‐ or African ape‐like, and often followed a sex relationship (e.g., females larger than males) that was found only in Asian apes. Human scaphoid morphology was the unique relative to other hominoids while the human lunate showed the most sexual dimorphism, which together may imply variation in radiocarpal joint function. Although some sexual dimorphism was also found in other hominoids, the morphological patterns displayed in humans suggest the development of the new shape variation rather than phylogenetic lag. The functional implications, if any, are important for the locomotor reconstruction of Australopithecus and the origin of human bipedalism. Grant Funding Source NSF
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".