MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035181572 · doi:10.1159/000021740

Prevalence and Etiology of Linear Enamel Hypoplasia in Monkeys and Apes from Asia and Africa

2000· article· en· W2035181572 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Debbie Guatelli‐Steinberg, Mark Skinner

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Primatologica · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnamel hypoplasiaPrimateBiologyPongidaeOld WorldSympatric speciationHypoplasiaZoologyCercopithecidaeAnatomyEnamel paintEcologyMedicineDentistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ninety-seven specimens of sympatric monkeys and apes from East Malaysia and 115 monkeys and apes from West Africa are examined in order to evaluate the magnitude and nature of the great ape-monkey linear enamel hypoplasia (LEH) 'dichotomy'. This study demonstrates that great apes from both regions have a higher incidence of LEH and repetitive LEH than do gibbons and monkeys. However, the authors find that the dichotomy is not as clear-cut as previous research suggests, since some monkey samples exhibit high LEH frequencies. The authors evaluate the potential influence of great ape-monkey differences in crown height on this dichotomy. They show that canine crown height variation is weakly associated with LEH variation. Differences between monkeys and great apes in their crown formation spans and in their experience of environmental stress may be more likely causes of the dichotomy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations64
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFolia PrimatologicaSame topicForensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesFrench-language works237,207