Analysing the occlusal wear of the hominins of Sima de los Huesos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occlusal surface of a tooth can provide evidence of past behaviour. In general terms, occlusal wear decreases through time, with industrialised modern humans having low occlusal wear because of the greater reliance upon processed foods. Neanderthals are thought to have exceptionally heavy occlusal wear, due to high mechanical loading from paramasticatory and masticatory behaviour. Here, we compare occlusal wear of hominins from Sima de los Huesos (SH, n=19) to Neanderthals (n=21) and modern humans (Middle Palaeolithic, n=5; Upper/ Early Epi Palaeolithic, n=26; Igloolik Inuit n=79; 19th-20th-century Madrilños individuals, CMH, n=14). The SH are thought to either be early Neanderthals or closely related to them, and share a number of cranial and dental traits with both Neanderthals (e.g. shovel-shaped incisors) and modern humans (e.g. frequent absence of the hypoconulid). Results deviate from the general and expected trend. The SH group had more wear on their upper I1 compared to Neanderthals (p=0.022), but not modern humans (p>0.05). We that SH upper P3 is more worn than all other groups (p potentially pointing to masticatory behavioural differences. The mandibular dentition of the SH was significantly more worn compared to Neanderthals (C-M2, p , Inuit (I1-M2, p (M2, p=0.030). It may be that SH were using their mandibular dentition less for paramasticatory activities or that the lower age range of the SH hominins used in the mandibular group meant that they generally had less wear
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".