A comparative morphological study of the sixth and seventh spinous processes of the cervical vertebrae in extinct and extant species of Equus.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The lateral profile of the 6th and 7th cervical spinous processes (CSPs) were examined in four extantspecies of Equus (n=33); E. caballus (n=26), E. przewalskii (n=3), E. quagga boehmi (n=1), E. asinus (n=3)and compared to pre-domesticated Equus specimens (n=66) representing three known species: E. occidentalis(n=56), E. mosbachensis (n=2), E. curvedins/insulatis (n=1) and unknown Equus species (n=7) from five museums.Six common morphological profiles were revealed: cuneate, curvate, falcate, rudimentary, scalenate,and truncate. For the 6th CSP, the distribution of these morphologies amongst extant Equus is: cuneate, onlyE. asinus; curvate, E. caballus and E. przewalskii always in combination with ligamentum lamina nuchae (lig.lamina nuchae) attachments from the 2nd through to 7th CSP inclusive; falcate, E. caballus and E. przewalskiialways in combination with lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd through to 7th CSP inclusive;rudimentary, E. caballus always associated with lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd through to 5thCSP inclusive; scalenate, E. caballus in association with lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd throughto 5th (n=11) or 7th (n=4) CSP inclusive; truncate, not present. The 6th CSP in museum specimens of Equusexhibits one of four profiles: cuneate (n=10), curvate (n=14), scalenate (n=11) and truncate (n=4). For the 7thCSP, the distribution of these morphologies amongst extant Equus is: curvate, E. caballus mostly associatedwith lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd through to 5th CSP inclusive, falcate, E. caballus mostly associatedwith lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd through to 7th CSP inclusive, scalenate, E. caballusassociated with lig. lamina nuchae attachments from the 2nd through to 5th CSP inclusive. Only Rancho LaBrea and Tar Pits Museum provided samples suitable for examination of the 7th CSP. These exhibited fourprofiles: curvate (n=7), falcate (n=11), scalenate (n=2), and truncate (n=7). These findings suggest that thelateral profile of the 6th CSP is of potential use in identification of species; attachments of the lig. lamina nuchaealter the morphology of the 6th and 7th CSP; and that attachments of the lig. lamina nuchae on the 2ndto 7th CSP were likely present in species of Equus prior to domestication.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".