Quantification of neocortical ratios in stem primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extant euprimates (=crown primates) have a characteristically expanded neocortical region of the brain relative to that of other mammals, but the timing of that expansion in their evolutionary history is poorly resolved. Examination of anatomical landmarks on fossil endocasts of Eocene euprimates suggests that significant neocortical expansion relative to contemporaneous mammals was already underway. Here, we provide quantitative estimates of neocorticalization in stem primates (plesiadapiforms) relevant to the question of whether relative neocortical expansion was uniquely characteristic of the crown primate radiation. Ratios of neocortex to endocast surface areas were calculated for plesiadapiforms using measurements from virtual endocasts of the paromomyid Ignacius graybullianus (early Eocene, Wyoming) and the microsyopid Microsyops annectens (middle Eocene, Wyoming). These data are similar to a published estimate for the plesiadapid, Plesiadapis tricuspidens, but contrast with those calculated for early Tertiary euprimates in being within the 95% confidence intervals for archaic mammals generally. Interpretation of these values is complicated by the paucity of sampled endocasts for older stem primates and euarchontogliran outgroups, as well as by a combination of effects related to temporal trends, allometry, and taxon-unique specializations. Regardless, these results are consistent with the hypothesis that a shift in brain organization occurred in the first euprimates, likely in association with elaborations to the visual system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".