MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2409082384

Chimpanzees as an outgroup for the examination of human dental evolution.

2000· article· en· W2409082384 on OpenAlexaff
Shields Ed

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSexual dimorphismOutgroupHuman evolutionBiologyTroglodytesEvolutionary biologyPopulationAustralopithecusZoologyDemographyPaleontologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the assessment of human origins, chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes, henceforth called Pan) represent the best hominoid outgroup for comparisons. Such an outgroup roots the "anatomically modern" human population cluster, or continuum. This study incorporates chimpanzees into a worldwide modern human database of quantified complete tooth variables (approximately 30 per tooth; e.g., root, pulp, enamel) in an attempt to develop a more accurate phylogeny of the hominoid continuum, with only intervening extinct hominids missing. Canonical discriminate analysis was performed mainly among Liberian common chimpanzees and global samples of humans. The first canonical variable explained 70% of the total variance and showed a tight cluster of humans, with chimpanzees as a distant outgroup. Within the human community, first non-San Bushman, sub-Saharan Africans and Andamanese, and then, close in, Australian aborigines were positioned towards Pan. Their relative orientation suggested an African human origin with the first branch within sub-Saharan Africa: sub-Saharan Africans and San Bushmen. Next, Andamanese Negritos, and then Australian aborigines, formed the early first surviving modern human lineage to leave Africa. Thin enamel and big teeth with relatively large roots characterized Pan nonmolar teeth. Humans showed a generalized sexual dimorphism for all teeth, with males having bigger teeth, bigger relative roots, and thinner enamel than females, while only Pan canines had significant and impressive sexual dimorphism. Interestingly, Pan molars were not larger than human molars. The data suggest that although hominids underwent two dental macroevolutionary events, the lineage leading to modern humans only experienced anterior tooth-size reduction. The suggested evolutionary significance of the observed total tooth variation is discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207