MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Homo floresiensis</i>

2022· book-chapter· en· W4392316897 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew W. Tocheri, E. Grace Veatch, Jatmiko Jatmiko, E. Wahyu Saptomo, Thomas Sutikna

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2022
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Homo floresiensis—the holotype of which stood ~106 cm tall, weighed ~27.5 kg, and had a brain ~426 cm3—is the taxonomic name given to hominin remains discovered in Late Pleistocene deposits at Liang Bua, a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores. This species, and the skeletal and cultural remains attributed to it, has been the source of considerable scientific and public interest as well as intense debate since its discovery was first announced. A major implication of the discovery of this extinct taxon is that modern humans (Homo sapiens) once shared this planet with Neandertals and Denisovans as well as H. floresiensis, which also walked bipedally and made and used stone tools but had a brain size, body proportions, and other primitive features not seen within the genus Homo for the past ~1.5 million years. Prior to ~50 thousand years ago human biological diversity was significantly greater than it is presently when the only hominins remaining are members of a single species, H. sapiens. This chapter overviews key aspects about what is currently known about this taxon and how this knowledge differs from or extends upon the initial studies of H. floresiensis. It also outlines how new discoveries and further research will continue to improve and reshape our understanding of the biology and culture of this intriguing human species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.006

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207