MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000733798 · doi:10.1017/9781108185738

The Evolutionary Biology of the Human Pelvis

2019· book· en· W3000733798 on OpenAlexaff
Cara M. Wall‐Scheffler, Helen K. Kurki, Benjamin M. Auerbach

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2019
Typebook
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman evolutionPaleoanthropologyDilemmaEpistemologyEvolutionary biologyBiologySociologyAnthropologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This book provides a synthetic overview of all evidence concerning the evolution of the morphology of the human pelvis, including comparative anatomy, clinical and experimental studies, and quantitative evolutionary models. By integrating these lines of research, this is the first book to bring all sources of evidence together to develop a coherent statement about the current state of the art in understanding pelvic evolution. Second, and related to this, the volume is the first detailed assessment of existing paradigms about the evolution of the pelvis, especially the obstetric dilemma. The authors argue that there are many 'dilemmas', but these must be approached using a testable methodology, rather than on the proviso of a single paradigm. The volume clearly contributes to greater scientific knowledge about human variation and evolution, and has implications for clinicians working within reproductive health. A thought-provoking read for students, researchers and professionals in the fields of biological anthropology, human evolutionary anthropology, paleoanthropology, bioarchaeology, biology, developmental biology and obstetrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.187 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooksSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207