Variation and Integration of the Simple Mandibular Postcanine Dentition in Two Species of Phocid Seal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pinnipeds generally swallow prey whole, and most have simple, homodont, nonoccluding cheek teeth. We investigated whether cheek teeth in seals are more variable and weakly integrated than in terrestrial Carnivora. We measured mandibular length and crown length of mandibular postcanines (PCs) in ringed seals (Pusa hispida; n = 912) from the Canadian Arctic, and harp seals (Pagophilus groenlandicus; n = 636) from Newfoundland and Labrador. PC size was uncorrected or only weakly correlated with adult mandibular length. PC length and mandibular length were strongly bilaterally symmetrical (r ≥ 0.8 between left and right sides). PC size was moderately variable (coefficients of variation [CVs] ∼ 7–10%), and CVvaried with position in the toothrow. Adjacent PCs were correlated more strongly in size (to r > 0.8) than PCs more distant from one another. In summary, PC size in ringed and harp seals was slightly more variable than cheek teeth in complex dentitions of fissipeds, and the 2 seals were similar to fissipeds in strong bilateral symmetry in mandibular and PC size, patterned variation along the toothrow, and correlated size between adjacent PCs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".