Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Neanderthals' northern distribution, hunting techniques, and orbit breadths suggest that they were more active in dim light than modern humans. We surveyed visual opsin genes from four Neanderthals and two other archaic hominids to see if they provided additional support for this hypothesis. This analysis was motivated by the observation that alleles responsible for anomalous trichromacy in humans are more common in northern latitudes, by data suggesting that these variants might enhance vision in mesopic conditions, and by the observation that dim light active species often have fewer opsin genes than diurnal relatives. We also looked for evidence of convergent amino acid substitutions in Neanderthal opsins and orthologs from crepuscular or nocturnal species. The Altai Neanderthal, the Denisovan, and the Ust'-Ishim early modern human had opsin genes that encoded proteins identical to orthologs in the human reference genome. Opsins from the Vindija Cave Neanderthals (three females) had many nonsynonymous substitutions, including several predicted to influence colour vision (e.g., stop codons). However, the functional implications of these observations were difficult to assess, given that "control" loci, where no substitutions were expected, differed from humans to the same extent. This left unresolved the test for colour vision deficiencies in Vindija Cave Neanderthals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".