Anomalous erosion patterns on the cheek teeth of babirusa (genus <i>Babyrousa</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two types of anomalous erosive wear, designated “Wear” and “Groove”, were found in the molar teeth of adult babirusa (genus Babyrousa Perry, 1811) species from Buru or the Sula Islands and Sulawesi, Indonesia. A survey of 590 specimens of babirusa crania and mandibles from international museums and private collections revealed their presence in 20 of 187 specimens from Buru or the Sula Islands, in 99 of 391 specimens from Sulawesi, and in 4 of 31 subfossil specimens from South Sulawesi. “N_Wear” comprised a discrete indentation or almost circular erosion of the enamel and underlying dentine in a molar tooth; “W_Wear” comprised tooth indentations of irregular shape larger than 7 mm × 7 mm in size; “E_Wear” comprised extensive tooth indentation. “Wear” anomalies were found on 10% of specimens from Buru or the Sula Islands and on 17% of all Sulawesi crania and mandibles. It was hypothesised that tooth grinding of the abrasive seeds of the wild banana (Musa balbisiana Colla) initiated this anomaly. Groove was a deep, oval-shaped cleft cut into the enamel and dentine between two molar teeth. Groove anomalies were evident in 3% of Buru or the Sula Islands specimens and in 12% of all Sulawesi specimens. No conclusion was reached regarding the initiator of the Groove anomaly.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".