Morphological and evolutionary insights into the keystone element of the human foot’s medial longitudinal arch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of the medial longitudinal arch (MLA) is one of the most impactful adaptations in the hominin foot that emerged with bipedalism. When and how it evolved in the human lineage is still unresolved. Complicating the issue, clinical definitions of flatfoot in living Homo sapiens have not reached a consensus. Here we digitally investigate the navicular morphology of H. sapiens (living, archaeological, and fossil), great apes, and fossil hominins and its correlation with the MLA. A distinctive navicular shape characterises living H. sapiens with adult acquired flexible flatfoot, while the congenital flexible flatfoot exhibits a 'normal' navicular shape. All H. sapiens groups differentiate from great apes independently from variations in the MLA, likely because of bipedalism. Most australopith, H. naledi, and H. floresiensis navicular shapes are closer to those of great apes, which is inconsistent with a human-like MLA and instead might suggest a certain degree of arboreality. Navicular shape of OH 8 and fossil H. sapiens falls within the normal living H. sapiens spectrum of variation of the MLA (including congenital flexible flatfoot and individuals with a well-developed MLA). At the same time, H. neanderthalensis seem to be characterised by a different expression of the MLA.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".