Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Extant hominoid cranial variability, although marked, represents only a remnant of a temporally and geographically expansive evolutionary history. Attempts to reconstruct the evolutionary processes that have played a role in the morphological divergence of this superfamily have been complicated by a sparse hominoid fossil record, and ambiguity related to phylogenetic relationships. Moreover, morphological variation in the cranium is influenced by a complex combination of functional, developmental and architectural constraints, complicating our ability to tease apart specific evolutionary pressures. However, due to advances in the field of evolutionary quantitative genetics, recent studies of extant hominoid taxa have reconstructed the potential evolutionary processes that have generated cranial diversity. Collectively, these studies have shown that directional selection, although identified in the evolutionary path to hominins, was not the major driving force behind this divergence. Rather, it is a combination of genetic drift and stabilising selection that characterises the evolution of the hominoid cranium. Key Concepts Morphological diversity in the hominoid cranium is extensive. Cranial diversity is influenced by evolutionary, developmental, functional, structural forces and constraints. Extant hominoids are a small fraction of all hominoids that have ever lived. The hominoid fossil record is fragmentary and phylogenetic relationships are ambiguous. Quantitative genetic analyses indicate a combination of evolutionary processes have shaped the hominoid cranium.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".