Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterodonty (i.e., possession of different tooth morphologies) is considered a hallmark of mammalian evolution.Recent literature describes genetic mechanisms thought to pattern heterodonty during early dental development in mammals.However, these studies are unable to address changes in developmental mechanisms at macroevolutionary scales, due to exclusive reliance on extant taxa.Therefore, there is a pressing need for an understanding of dental development that incorporates both extant and extinct taxa.We hypothesize that analysis of cusp-shape disparity at the premolar/molar boundary will elucidate pivotal evolutionary changes in mammalian dental region patterning.We are developing a landmark scheme to capture shape disparity at the premolar/ molar boundary for both extant and extinct artiodactyl and perissodactyl species.We predict that more derived taxa should show higher levels of integration across the premolar-molar boundary.The current landmark scheme includes type II landmarks (protoconid, entoconid, metaconid, hypoconid, and others) and type III landmarks (cusp outlines) for both the fourth premolar and first molar.Geometric morphometric analysis is expected to provide a proxy of integration in developmental programs of premolars and molars.In this way, we can formulate further questions about trajectories of dental development evolution throughout ungulate lineages.This study aims to use dental morphology to elucidate evolutionary patterns to provide another outlook on dental development evolution in mammals.The final landmark scheme will be designed to be applicable to most other mammalian taxa, allowing further investigation into the evolution of variation existent in mammalian heterodonty.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.929 | 0.880 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".