Tooth wear, Neanderthal facial morphology and the anterior dental loading hypothesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Anterior Dental Loading Hypothesis states that the unique Neanderthal facial and dental anatomy was an adaptive response to the regular application of heavy forces resulting from both the masticatory and cultural use of the anterior teeth. Heavy anterior tooth wear frequently observed in Neanderthal specimens is cited as a main source of evidence for heavy forces being applied to these teeth. From this, it might be predicted that the wear shown on the anterior teeth of Neanderthals would greatly exceed that of the posterior teeth and that this differential would be greater than in other hominins with different facial morphologies. In this paper, a new method of examining tooth wear patterns is used to test these predictions in a large assemblage of Late Pleistocene hominins and a group of recent hunter-gatherers from Igloolik, Canada. The results show that all Late Pleistocene hominins, including Neanderthals, had heavily worn anterior teeth relative to their posterior teeth but, contrary to expectations, this was more pronounced in the modern humans than in the Neanderthals. The Igloolik Inuit showed heavier anterior tooth wear relative to their posterior teeth than any Late Pleistocene hominins. There was, however, a characteristic Neanderthal pattern in which wear was more evenly spread between anterior teeth than in modern humans. Overall, the evidence presented here suggests that all Late Pleistocene hominins habitually applied heavy forces between their anterior teeth and that Neanderthals were not exceptional in this regard. These results therefore does not support the Anterior Dental Loading Hypothesis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".