Morphoscopic ancestry estimates in Filipino crania using multivariate probit regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Probit has not been applied to ancestry estimation in forensic anthropology. The goals of this study were to: (1) evaluate the performance of probit analysis as a classification tool for ancestry estimation using ordinal data and (2) expand our current understanding of human cranial variation for an understudied population. METHODS: Multivariate probit models were used to classify the ancestral affiliation of Filipino crania using morphoscopic traits. Ancestral reference populations represented Africa, Asia, and Europe in a three-group model, with the addition of Hispanics in a four-group model. Posterior probabilities across these groups were interpreted as admixture proportions of an individual. Model performance was also evaluated for individuals with missing data. RESULTS: The overall correct classification rates for the three-group and four-group models were 72.1% and 68.6%, respectively. Filipinos classified as Asian 52.9% of the time using three ancestral reference groups and 48.6% using four groups. A large portion of Filipinos also classified as African. There were no significant differences in classification trends or accuracy rates between complete crania and crania with at least one missing variable. CONCLUSIONS: Multivariate probit models using morphoscopic traits perform well when populations are represented in both training and test samples. Probit can also accommodate individuals with missing data. Classifying Filipinos showed only moderate success. Filipinos are more phenotypically similar to Africans than the other Asian samples used here, but still affiliate most closely as Asian. Ancestry methods would benefit from including Filipinos as a reference sample given the additional variation they provide to the continental category of Asian.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".