Anterior tooth growth periods in Neandertals were comparable to those of modern humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A longstanding controversy in paleoanthropology surrounds the question of whether Neandertals shared the prolonged growth periods of modern humans. To address this question, this investigation compares the duration of enamel formation in Neandertals with that of three comparative modern human groups. Because dental and somatic growth are correlated with each other, dental growth periods are indicative of overall periods of growth. Growth increments on the anterior teeth of Neandertals, modern Inuit, and modern people from Newcastle and southern Africa were counted and their means compared. In addition, potential variation in the time spans represented by growth increments was considered and incorporated into the analysis of enamel formation times. These analyses show that Neandertal imbricational enamel formation times, although likely to have been faster than those of the Inuit, are not likely to have been faster than those of the Newcastle sample and for some teeth are clearly slower than those of the southern African sample. Thus, Neandertal tooth growth and, by extension, somatic growth, appears to be encompassed within the modern human range of interpopulation variation.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".