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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".