MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226181300 · doi:10.1080/00085030.2022.2043522

Morphological variation in the mandible of white males and females from the East Texas region for potential applications for skeletal identification

2022· article· en· W4226181300 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lissette M. Varela, Benjamin H. Moss, Peer H. Moore‐Jansen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Society of Forensic Science Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismMandible (arthropod mouthpart)Metric (unit)CondyleOrthodonticsForensic anthropologyBiologyDentistryMathematicsAnatomyMedicineGeographyGenusArchaeologyZoologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mandible is a bone that preserves well in forensic and archaeological contexts and has sound use for sex estimation techniques when the bones of the cranium and pelvis are absent. Past research has frequently used morphological assessments of the mandible, which have long been recognized as a useful means for estimating sex. This study addressed the application and effectiveness of metric and non-metric observations to illustrate the morphological variation of mandibular size and shape to explore sexual dimorphism between males and females. Three non-metric observations and fourteen metric measurements were recorded on mandibles from a skeletal sample of two-hundred and thirty-six individuals from a collection acquired in the region of southeastern Texas. The findings of this study demonstrate that the use of select metric measurements, including bigonial width, bicondylar breadth, minimum and maximum ramus breadth, transverse diameter of the mandibular condyle, maximum ramus height, mandibular length, mandibular total length, and mandibular ramus height, should be considered for sex estimation in the mandible. Two regression models were reported in this study one with eleven measurements at 81.48% accuracy and one with three measurements at 83.33% accuracy. Alternatively, the non-metric analyses exhibited no significant correlation with sex in the study sample, and therefore, non-metric observations of the mandible are not reliable in sex estimation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.012
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.215 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Society of Forensic Science JournalSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207