MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386083917 · doi:10.1002/evan.22001

Beyond sex, gender, and other dilemmas: Human pelvic morphology from an integrative context

2023· review· en· W4386083917 on OpenAlexafffund
Cara M. Wall‐Scheffler, Helen K. Kurki

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersKoninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor NatuurwetenschappenUniversity of Cape TownSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversité de Genève
KeywordsBipedalismMorphology (biology)PelvisContext (archaeology)Evolutionary biologyFlexibility (engineering)PopulationHominidaeHuman evolutionDiversity (politics)BiologyBiological evolutionAnatomyZoologyDemographyPaleontologySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent research on the pelvis has clarified the flexibility of pelvic bones to manage nearly infinite possibilities in terms of selection and drift, while still maintaining excellent bipedalism. Despite this work, and the studies outlining the diversity of pelvic morphology across the hominin lineage, conversations continue to be stymied by distractions related to purported trade-offs that the different functions the pelvis must either allow for (e.g., parturition) or directly perform (e.g., attachment sites of muscles). Here we show that tight constraints on morphology are not evident in the pelvic variation of multiple human populations. We thus provide further evidence that human pelves are not geometrically similar and that pelvic morphology successfully balances the intersection of population history, active selective, and drift.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary Anthropology Issues News and ReviewsSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207