Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The origin of the genusHomois marked by a period of widespread morphological diversity across eastern and southern Africa. While the evolution of earlyHomois recognised as a significant evolutionary juncture, this extensive variability makes it difficult to delimit a clear boundary between the australopiths andHomo, with the transition between the two reflecting a continuum, rather than a distinct transformation. This is also highlighted by disputes related to the most likely ancestor ofHomo. Moreover, the period is marked by large‐scale climatic and environmental fluctuations, which have, in the past, been used to generate correlative adaptive hypotheses for the emergence of our genus. However, recent studies of fine‐scale palaeoenvironmental patterns, and applications of quantitative genetics theory to the fossil record, have identified a more complex picture of multiple lineages, habitat fragmentation and the influence of multiple evolutionary processes that defines the evolution of early members of our genus. Key Concepts The transition to the genusHomotook place along a morphological continuum between 2 and 3 million years ago. Variability across the earliestHomofossil specimens is extensive, temporally, geographically and morphologically. The period marking the early evolution ofHomois characterised by extreme climatic and environmental oscillations. There is no consensus as to the most likely ancestral species of the genusHomo. Emerging research suggests that the diversification ofHomowas multifaceted and included a range of evolutionary processes and multiple lineages.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".