MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2624652357 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.23252

The Late Neandertal permanent lower left third premolar from Walou Cave (Trooz, Belgium) and its context

2017· article· en· W2624652357 on OpenAlexaff
Michel Toussaint, Christine Verna, Adeline Le Cabec, Aida Gómez‐Robles, Christelle Draily, Michael P. Richards, Stéphane Pirson

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersMax-Planck-Gesellschaft
KeywordsMousterianMiddle PaleolithicCaveUpper PaleolithicContext (archaeology)PremolarNeanderthalAurignacianGeographyRange (aeronautics)PaleontologyStructural basinArchaeologyGeologyBiologyMolar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: We describe a hominin permanent lower left third premolar unearthed in 1997 at Walou Cave (Belgium), found in direct association with a Mousterian lithic industry, in a layer directly dated to 40-38,000 years BP. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The taxonomical attribution of the tooth is addressed through comparative morphometric analyses, and stable isotope analyses aimed at determining the diet of the individual. RESULTS: plots within the Neandertal range of variation and is significantly different from recent modern humans in all morphometric assessments. The isotope data showed that like other Neandertals, the Walou individual acquired its dietary proteins primarily from terrestrial food sources. DISCUSSION: We discuss the implications of the existence of a clearly Neandertal premolar dating to the period of the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in the Meuse river basin.

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)0.001
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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.300 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologySame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207