Dental Signatures for Exudativory in Living Primates, with Comparisons to Other Gouging Mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Exudativory, the consumption of gums, is an obligate or a facultative dietary niche for some primates and marsupials. Exudativory has been cited as a dietary niche that may have been present in early primates, so finding a dental signature for exudativory is highly desirable. The present study combines exudativorous lorisoids (galagos and lorises) into one sample to compare to closely related, non‐exudativorous lorisoids to search for a consistent dental signature of exudativory. Linear measurements were taken from the toothcomb, P2, M3, upper canine, and P2 from skulls of 295 adult galagids and lorisids. Also, differential distribution of enamel on the anterior teeth was qualitatively investigated as a dental signature for gouging (a behavior that facilitates some exudativory) by micro‐CT scanning one specimen each from two gougers, Nycticebus coucang and Callithrix jacchus, and two non‐gougers, Perodicticus potto, and Saguinus fuscicollis. Non‐primate gouging mammals, the vampire bat Desmodus rotundus and the sugar glider Petaurus breviceps, were compared to non‐gouging relatives. Statistical analysis revealed that exudativorous galagos and lorises had significantly (P < 0.05) reduced M3 relative to non‐exudativorous galagos and lorises. While the sample sizes for assessing enamel thickness were small, preliminary results show that gouging primates and non‐primate mammals have reduced lingual enamel thickness on the anterior dentition compared to non‐gouging relatives. We suggest that reduction of mastication, and, therefore, M3 dimensions are a likely dental signature for exudativory in Primates. While broader samples are needed to statistically confirm, differential distribution of enamel in the anterior dentition may also be a signature of exudativory. Anat Rec, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Anat Rec, 303:265–281, 2020. © 2018 American Association for Anatomy
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".