Normal and altered masticatory load impact on the range of craniofacial shape variation: An analysis of pre-Hispanic and modern populations of the American Southern Cone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reduction of masticatory load intensity resulting from dietary changes in human evolution has been proposed as an important factor that alters craniofacial shape in past and current populations. However, its impact on craniofacial variation and on the perceived differences among populations is unclear. The maxillomandibular relationship, which alters masticatory force direction, is a factor often neglected but it can contribute to variation in craniofacial morphology, particularly among modern/urban populations where the prevalence of dental malocclusions is greater than in prehistoric populations. This study investigates the influence of masticatory load intensity and maxillomandibular relationship as a proxy for force direction on the human craniofacial skeleton. By using 3D imaging and geometric morphometrics, we analyzed craniofacial shape variation among 186 individuals from pre-Hispanic and modern Chilean and Argentinean populations that differ in diet consistency (a proxy for masticatory load intensity) and maxillomandibular relationship. We predicted that masticatory load would have a subtle effect on the upper craniofacial bones and that this would be more marked in the maxilla. Our results showed no clear influence of masticatory load on craniofacial shape, particularly in modern/urban populations. Allometry, on the contrary, shows a stronger effect. The degree of integration between the upper craniofacial bones and the load-bearing maxilla depends on masticatory load intensity, decreasing from high to low but showing a conservative pattern of covariation among the groups. The degree of variation in the shape of the maxilla is greater than the upper craniofacial bones. These results suggest that masticatory load has a limited effect in determining differences in craniofacial morphology among populations. This effect is slightly greater for the maxillary region of the face. We propose that the reduction of functional constraints is key to greater shape variation found in modern/urban populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".