High expression of canines in some Mediterranean roe deer (<i>Capreolus capreolus</i>) populations against the general evolutionary trend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Upper canines do not usually appear in the roe deer ( Capreolus capreolus (Linnaeus, 1758)) and their occasional appearance represents the expression of a tooth, as a rudimentary canine, which has been suppressed in the evolution of the group. These dental anomalies could be potentially useful for tracing ancestral genes in local ecotypes and populations. We studied the skulls of 517 adult roe deer males from seven Iberian Peninsula hunting populations looking for canine occurrence and the variations depending on region and ecomorphological variety. A total of 18 specimens had canines (3.48%), but a relationship was detected between the geographic origin and the canine presence. We found upper canines in three populations that were located in the Tagus River Basin, with 6.08%, 10.91%, and 20% prevalences, respectively. In the population with the highest prevalence, we also found a case of duplicated canines on either side of the upper jaw. Here, the high prevalence of upper canines against the evolutionary trend may be a sign of atavistic populations, possibly adapted to a less fibrous diet, in a geographical area connected through the Tagus River Basin, and probably regarding one of the glacial refuges of the Iberian Peninsula.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".