Enamel thickness and dental development in Rudapithecus hungaricus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fossil record of middle and late Miocene Eurasian hominoids has expanded considerably over the past few decades, particularly with the recovery of numerous isolated teeth and jaws. Scholars have turned to assessments of internal tooth structure and growth to make sense of the evolutionary radiations of these primates as well as their affinities to the living great apes (hominids). Here we characterize full-dentition enamel thickness and dental development in several juvenile Rudapithecus hungaricus individuals using multiple imaging modalities. Relative enamel thickness (RET) values for the anterior teeth and premolars of Rudapithecus are broadly akin to those of gorillas and chimpanzees and are thinner than those of orangutans. First molar RET values are most similar to chimpanzees, while posterior molar values are closer to thicker-enameled orangutans. When compared to Miocene hominoids, Rudapithecus shows an intermediate molar RET condition that is especially similar to other dryopithecines. Long-period line periodicity values are comparable to African apes and most Miocene hominoids, and lower than living and fossil orangutans. The mean cuspal daily secretion rate is similar to that of several other Miocene hominoids but is greater than extant great apes. Cusp-specific molar crown formation times generally exceed those of chimpanzees, are lower than those of orangutans, and are broadly like those of other Miocene apes. While Rudapithecus appears to have a somewhat unique pattern of enamel thickness and dental development relative to individual great ape genera, these structural and developmental features are consistent with its designation as a hominid.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".