Obstetric dimensions of the female pelvis are less integrated than locomotor dimensions and show protective scaling patterns: Implications for the obstetrical dilemma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The "obstetrical dilemma" hypothesis assumes that the modern human female pelvis serves two discrete functions: obstetrics and locomotion. We investigate whether these differing functions create observable patterns of morphological covariation and whether those patterns differ by height, weight, and age. This allows evaluation of evidence for canalization and phenotypic plasticity relevant to obstetric and locomotor function among a living female population. METHODS: Landmarks (N = 86) were collected and inter-landmark distances were calculated (N = 36) on the pelvis and proximal femur of CT scans of living women aged 20 to 90 years (M = 93) receiving a routine CT scan. Partial least squares and relative SD of eigenvalues analyses were used to evaluate integration overall and within locomotor and obstetric modules, respectively. Ordinary Least Squared regression was used to evaluate scaling relationships between inter-landmark distances and height, weight, and age. RESULTS: The obstetric pelvis was significantly less internally integrated than the locomotor pelvis. Many obstetric measurements were constrained in absolute terms relative to height; shorter women had relatively larger birth canal dimensions, and several key obstetric dimensions showed relative freedom from height. Lower weight women had some relatively larger obstetric and locomotor dimensions. Regarding age, younger women showed a few relatively larger outlet dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the obstetric pelvis and the locomotor pelvis function are morphologically distinct, with the obstetric pelvis showing relatively greater flexibility. These relationships between relative constraints support the hypothesis that the modern female pelvis shows evidence of both canalization and phenotypic plasticity in obstetric and locomotor structures.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".