MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150076507 · doi:10.1002/jmor.10585

Structure of ivory

2007· article· en· W2150076507 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Locke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentinal TubuleAnatomyDentinBiologyHippopotamusProboscideaMaterials scienceComposite materialPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Profiles with all orientations have been used to visualize the 3D structure of ivory from tusks of elephant, mammoth, walrus, hippopotamus, pig (bush, boar, and warthog), sperm whale, killer whale, and narwhal. Polished, forming, fractured, aged, and stained surfaces were prepared for microscopy using epi-illumination. Tusks have a minor peripheral component, the cementum, a soft derivative of the enamel layer, and a main core of dentine=ivory. The dentine is composed of a matrix of particles 5-20 microm in diameter in a ground substance containing dentinal tubules about 5 microm in diameter with a center to center spacing of 10-20 microm. Dentinal tubules may be straight (most) or curly (pigs). The main findings relate to the way that dentinal tubules align in sheets to form microlaminae in the length of the tusk. Microlaminae are sheets of laterally aligned dentinal tubules. They are axial but may be radial (most), angled to the forming face (pigs and hippopotamus canines), or radial but helical (narwhals). Within the microlaminae the dentinal tubules may be radial, angled to the axis (whales, walrus, and pigs), or may change their orientation from one microlamina to the next in helicoids (canines of hippopotamuses, incisors of proboscidea). In the nonbanded, featureless ivories from the hippopotamus incisors, the dentinal tubules form radial microlamina from which the arrangements in other ivories can be derived. In the canines of hippopotamuses and incisors of proboscidea, the dentinal tubule orientation changes incrementally from one microlamina to the next in a helicoid, a stack of dentinal tubules that change their orientation by 180 degrees anticlockwise. Dentinal tubules having different orientations are laid down concurrently, not layer by layer as in most examples of helicoidal architecture (e.g., insect cuticle). In proboscidean ivory, the microlaminae are radial, normal to the banding of growth layers marking the plane of deposition. They form radial segments with each 180 degrees turn in the orientation of their constituent dentinal tubules. Below the cementum they are almost complete 180 degrees helicoids, but nearer to the core they become narrower with the loss of radially oriented dentinal tubules. These truncated helicoidal patterns appear in longitudinal profile as VVVV feather patterns rather than intersection intersection intersection intersection, each V or intersection being the side view of a partial or complete helicoid. The Schreger pattern in proboscidean ivory consists of these helicoids divided tangentially into columns in the length of the tusk. Narwhals have the most abundant matrix particles with their radial/helical dentinal tubules having a twist opposite to that in the cementum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations98
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207