MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206975893 · doi:10.53350/pjmhs22161143

Gender Disparities in the Coronal Suture Closure of the Cranium – A tool for estimation of sex

2022· article· en· W4206975893 on OpenAlexaff
Zulfiqar Ali Buzdar, Javaid Munir, Zia ul Haq, Muhammad Anwar Sibtain Fazli, Faiza Munir Qazi, Fakhar Zaman

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsContinental (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronal sutureFibrous jointCoronal planeCranial vaultClosure (psychology)MedicineSkullAnatomySurgeryLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Establishing the identification of a deceased at autopsy is one of the prime objective of medicolegal postmortem examination. The identification starts with determination of age and sex of the individual. The problem arise when completely decomposed dead body or just skeletal remains are brought for postmortem examination. Methods: The study was conducted on 90 dead bodies of equal proportion from both the genders in the year 2016 for a period of nine months. The cases were selected for study after careful scrutiny through a pre-trialed questionnaire with certain selection criteria. After proper exposure of the inner and outer surface of the cranial vault the degree of coronal suture closure was assessed in three segments as C1, C2 and C3 as observed through Acsádi‐Nemeskéri Scale. Results: A grossly significant observation of possibility of determination sex both from ectocranial and endocranial suture closure of the coronal suture with 0.001 p value was noted, therefore establish the fact that determination of sex from closure coronal suture is established. Keywords: Sex, Coronal, Suture, Closure

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207