Comparative morphometrics of the primate apical tuft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the structure and function of the primate apical tuft is poorly understood. This study addresses several hypotheses about apical tuft morphology using a large modern primate comparative sample. Two indices of tuft size are employed: expansion and robusticity. First, comparisons of relative apical tuft size were drawn among extant nonhuman primate groups in terms of locomotion and phylogenetic category. Both of these factors appear to play a role in apical tuft size among nonhuman primates. Suspensory primates and all platyrrhines had the smallest apical tufts, while terrestrial quadrupeds and all strepsirrhines (regardless of locomotor category) had the largest tufts. Similarly, hypotheses regarding the apical tufts of hominins, especially the large tufts of Neandertals were addressed using a comparison of modern warm- and cold-adapted humans. The results showed that cold-adapted populations possessed smaller apical tufts than did warm-adapted groups. Therefore, the cold-adaptation hypothesis for Neandertal distal phalangeal morphology is not supported. Also, early modern and Early Upper Paleolithic humans had apical tufts that were significantly less expanded and less robust than those of Neandertals. The hypothesis that a large apical tuft serves as support for an expanded digital pulp is supported by radiographic analysis of modern humans in that a significant correlation was discovered between the width of the apical tuft and the width of the pulp. The implications of these findings for hypotheses about the association of apical tuft size and tool making in the hominin fossil record are discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".