The first major primate extinction: An evaluation of paleoecological dynamics of North American stem primates using a homology free measure of tooth shape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The disappearance of the North American plesiadapoids (stem primates, or plesiadapiforms) in the latest Paleocene has been attributed to competition with rodents over dietary resources. This study compares molar morphology of plesiadapoids and early rodents to assess whether all taxa were adapted to consuming foods of the same structural properties with similar mechanical efficacy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Micro-CT scans of second mandibular molars (M2 s) of plesiadapoids (n = 181) and ischyromyid (early fossil) rodents (n = 13) were evaluated using Dirichlet normal energy (DNE), a dental topographic metric that quantifies the curvature of a tooth's occlusal surface, independent of the orientation of the occlusal plane; this metric can be used to infer diet. RESULTS: Comparisons of DNE values for plesiadapoids and rodents show that rodents shared functionally similar dental morphology with at least some plesiadapid plesiadapoids and thus were likely adapted to processing foods with similar physical properties. However, the DNE values for rodents contrast markedly with those for the other two plesiadapoid families, the Carpolestidae and Saxonellidae. CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that direct competition over food resources with rodents played a major role in the extinction of carpolestids and saxonellids, as members of these families were capable of consuming a range of foods that were not accessible to rodents. Although several plesiadapid species overlap with rodents in their range of DNE values, only three overlap in time. One of these (Plesiadapis cookei) may have been too large to be in direct competition with rodents, another (Plesiadapis dubius) has DNE values substantially different (higher) than those of rodents, whereas the third, Chiromyoides, has teeth of both a similar size and DNE value to those of Clarkforkian rodents. If dietary niche overlap with rodents played a direct role in the decline of plesiadapiforms, it can only have potentially done so for Chiromyoides.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".