MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981115117 · doi:10.1159/000502819

A Novel Method for Assessing Enamel Thickness Distribution in the Anterior Dentition as a Signal for Gouging and Other Extractive Foraging Behaviors in Gummivorous Mammals

2019· article· en· W2981115117 on OpenAlexaff
Keegan Selig, Sergi López‐Torres, Adam Hartstone‐Rose, Leanne T. Nash, Anne M. Burrows, Mary Silcox

Bibliographic record

VenueFolia Primatologica · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoThe Scarborough Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnamel paintDentitionAnterior teethTooth enamelCrown (dentistry)DentistryContext (archaeology)Cheek teethBiologyAnatomyOrthodonticsPaleontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gummivory poses unique challenges to the dentition as gum acquisition may often require that the anterior teeth be adapted to retain a sharp edge and to resist loading because they sometimes must penetrate a highly obdurate substrate during gum extraction by means of gouging or scraping. It has been observed previously that the enamel on the labial surface of the teeth used for extraction is thicker relative to that on the lingual surface in taxa that extract gums, while enamel is more evenly distributed in the anterior teeth of taxa that do not regularly engage in extractive behaviors. This study presents a quantitative methodology for measuring the distribution of labial versus lingual enamel thickness among primate and marsupial taxa in the context of gummivory. Computed microtomography scans of 15 specimens representing 14 taxa were analyzed. Ten measurements were taken at 20% intervals starting from the base of the crown of the extractive tooth to the tip of the cutting edge across the lingual and labial enamel. A method for including worn or broken teeth is also presented. Mann-Whitney U tests, canonical variates analysis, and between-group principal components analysis were used to examine variation in enamel thickness across taxa. Our results suggest that the differential distribution of enamel thickness in the anterior dentition can serve as a signal for gouging behavior; this methodology distinguishes between gougers, scrapers, and nonextractive gummivores. Gouging taxa are characterized by significantly thicker labial enamel relative to the lingual enamel, particularly towards the crown tip. Examination of enamel thickness patterning in these taxa permits a better understanding of the adaptations for the extraction of gums in extant taxa and offers the potential to test hypotheses concerning the dietary adaptations of fossil taxa.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations53
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFolia PrimatologicaSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207