Tierra Del Fuegians: Comparative Study of Frontal Bone Morphology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exists a large disagreement among scholars concerning the origin of the Tierra del Fuegian (TDF) population of South America. This population is distinctive because its members possess extremely robust crania compared to other populations of the Americas. Although most anthropologists agree that a northeastern Asian population migrated to the New World, there is still much debate over the origin of modern Native Americans and their relationship to one another. The frontal bone has been proved to provide valuable information indicating morphological and, by inference, genetic differences among populations. This study seeks to determine if variation in TDF frontal bone morphology lies outside the range of variation of other New World populations. Cranial outlines of adult males and females were collected from Point Hope, Labrador, the North American Southwest and Northeast, California, Mexico, Peru, Central and South America, Australia, Polynesia and Tierra del Fuego. The midsagittal (nasion to bregma) outline was taken using a modified pantograph designed by Dr. Sheela Athreya. The outlines were then digitized and analyzed using Procrustes analysis. If the frontal bones exhibit similar enough characteristics independent of size, then it will support the hypothesis that Tierra del Fuegians and other Native American populations are descendent from the same migratory population.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".