A comparative approach for characterizing the relationship among morphology, range-of-motion and locomotor behaviour in the primate shoulder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoulder shape directly impacts forelimb function by contributing to glenohumeral (GH) range-of-motion (ROM). However, identifying traits that contribute most to ROM and visualizing how they do so remains challenging, ultimately limiting our ability to reconstruct function and behaviour in fossil species. To address these limitations, we developed an in silico proximity-driven model to simulate and visualize three-dimensional (3D) GH rotations in living primate species with diverse locomotor profiles, identify those shapes that are most predictive of ROM using geometric morphometrics, and apply subsequent insights to interpret function and behaviour in the fossil hominin Australopithecus sediba . We found that ROM metrics that incorporated 3D rotations best discriminated locomotor groups, and the magnitude of ROM (mobility) was decoupled from the anatomical location of ROM (e.g. high abduction versus low abduction). Morphological traits that enhanced mobility were decoupled from those that enabled overhead positions, and all non-human apes possessed the latter but not necessarily the former. Model simulation in A. sediba predicted high mobility and a ROM centred at lower abduction levels than in living apes but higher than in modern humans. Together these results identify novel form-to-function relationships in the shoulder and enhance visualization tools to reconstruct past function and behaviour.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".