MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7070687962

The ontogeny of occipital bone convexity in a longitudinal sample of extant humans

2016· dissertation· en· W7070687962 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIowa Research Online (University of Iowa) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraniaSkullExtant taxonOccipital bonePostcraniaLarge sampleCranial boneBone growthFrontal bone
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The occipital bun, a distinctive convexity of the occipital squama, is often considered to be a uniquely derived Neandertal trait. Some scholars, however, consider the occipital morphology found in some early modern and extant human crania (often described as “hemi-buns”) to be homologous with Neandertal occipital buns. A number of hypotheses have been proposed to explain occipital bun/hemi-bun development, including neck muscle function, head carriage, brain growth timing, and cranial base cartilage growth timing, as well as braincase and facial integration. The feature, however, has never before been metrically quantified in a large subadult sample or studied in a well-documented growth series. The primary goal of this dissertation, therefore, was to assess hemi-bun growth and development in a combined comparative sample of extant humans amassed from the following growth series: the University of Toronto Burlington Growth Study, the Iowa Facial Growth Study, the Oregon Growth Study, the University of Oklahoma Denver Growth Study, the Wright State University Fels Longitudinal Study, and the Michigan Growth Study.\nCephalograms from these studies facilitated the collection of longitudinal cranial growth and development data. In total, measurements were collected from 468 cephalograms representing 16 males and 10 females. Measured subjects represented the ends of the range of variation in adult midsagittal occipital bone shape, including subjects with defined hemi-buns, as well as subjects lacking all evidence of hemi-bun morphology. Frontal and lateral cephalograms were measured for each subject at 9 age points, spanning from 3.0 to 20.4 years of age. A total of 16 landmarks and 153 sliding semi-landmarks were digitized at each age point. Geometric morphometric analyses, including relative warps analysis and two-block partial least squares analysis, were conducted to assess patterns of cranial covariation and sexual dimorphism in occipital bone growth and possible attendant variation in occipital bun development or absence.\nIn both bunned and non-bunned subjects, midsagittal occipital shape was found to be established very early in ontogeny, and then to remain largely unchanged between 3 years of age and adulthood. This result contradicts previous developmental hypotheses, which posit that occipital bunning results from a pattern of late posteriorly-directed brain growth. No evidence of sexual dimorphism in hemi-bun shape was found to exist in this extant human sample; however, defined hemi-buns were found to covary significantly with an elongated and low midsagittal neurocranial vault in both sexes. Other aspects of cranial morphology, including cranial and basicranial breadth, midcoronal vault shape, and basicranial angle, did not covary significantly with occipital bun morphology at any of the sampled age points.\nThese results reveal that occipital bunning, at least in this sample, is not a discrete trait, but instead develops along a continuum in association with a distinct pattern of neurocranial elongation. Previous studies have suggested that Neandertal occipital buns are similarly associated with elongated cranial vaults. While more work must be done to quantify occipital bun morphology in fossil subadults, this study finds no evidence to disprove the developmental homology of the feature in modern humans and Neandertals, and therefore further undermines the idea that occipital bunning is a unique Neandertal trait.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIowa Research Online (University of Iowa)Same topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207