Ontogeny, anatomy and attachment of the dentition in mosasaurs (Mosasauridae: Squamata)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aspects of mosasaur dental ontogeny are well preserved in many fossils of these giant marine squamates. Replacement teeth on the tooth-bearing elements (TBEs) first appear as small enamel crowns positioned posterolingual to the attached tooth (posterolabial for the pterygoid). Several developing crowns, of progressively larger size, are aligned in rows relating to a specific tooth position. The crowns rest in a dental groove that varies in width and depth depending on the TBE. The crown closest to the attached tooth is always the largest and is found in a small resorption pit. As resorption proceeds, the pit expands in volume (cementum and alveolar bone), and the crown increases in size and settles into the pit. Once mature crown size is achieved, the dentine root and cementum portion of the root develop rapidly, the attached tooth is lost and the replacement tooth erupts out of the alveolus. Mosasaurid teeth develop along a 'zig-zag'-shaped movement path: horizontally along the dental groove, down into the alveolus, and up and out of the alveolus prior to attachment to the alveolar wall. At no point in mosasaurid tooth development are the crowns observed in a horizontal position. The mosasaurid dental lamina appears to have been a continuous strip of dental epithelium as it is in other squamates. Mosasaurid tooth attachment is thecodont (histologically and geometrically) not subpleurodont. Most aspects of mosasaurid tooth attachment and ontogeny are autapomorphic for the group.
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.
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 it