MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011742248 · doi:10.7557/3.3195

The biology behind the counts: tooth development related to age estimation in beluga (<i>Delphinapterus leucas</i>)

2014· article· en· W2011742248 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNAMMCO Scientific Publications · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBelugaBeluga WhaleBiologyPulp (tooth)DentinLeucasDentistryOrthodonticsAnatomyEcologyMedicineFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widely accepted method of determining ages of beluga is to count dentine growth layer groups (GLGs) in median, longitudinal sections of a tooth. It is essential to understand how these growth layers form and to consider developmental factors that can confound their enumeration to be able to provide meaningful age estimates. Here we provide information on, and illustrate, the developmental biology of beluga teeth as it relates to interpreting GLGs. Key factors are: evaluating the presence and occlusal wear of fetal dentine; interpreting early-formed diagnostic features such as the neonatal line; assessing the last-formed growth layer adjacent to the pulp cavity; identifying the presence of nodes at the dentine-cementum interface to assist in counting GLGs; and recognizing pulp stones and accessory lines in the dentine which may hinder the age estimate process.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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