MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319333924 · doi:10.1002/ar.25168

The role of cranial osteoderms on the mechanics of the skull in scincid lizards

2023· article· en· W4319333924 on OpenAlexaff
Arsalan Marghoub, Loïc Kéver, Catherine J. Williams, Arhat Abzhanov, Matthew K. Vickaryous, Anthony Herrel, Susan E. Evans, Mehran Moazen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersHuman Frontier Science Program
KeywordsSkullBitingBite force quotientBiologyAnatomyIn vivoStrain (injury)Adductor musclesZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Osteoderms (ODs) are calcified organs formed directly within the skin of most major extant tetrapod lineages. Lizards possibly show the greatest diversity in ODs morphology and distribution. ODs are commonly hypothesized to function as a defensive armor. Here we tested the hypothesis that cranial osteoderms also contribute to the mechanics of the skull during biting. A series of in vivo experiments were carried out on three specimens of Tiliqua gigas. Animals were induced to bite a force plate while a single cranial OD was strain gauged. A finite element (FE) model of a related species, Tiliqua scincoides, was developed and used to estimate the level of strain across the same OD as instrumented in the in vivo experiments. FE results were compared to the in vivo data and the FE model was modified to test two hypothetical scenarios in which all ODs were (i) removed from, and (ii) fused to, the skull. In vivo data demonstrated that the ODs were carrying load during biting. The hypothetical FE models showed that when cranial ODs were fused to the skull, the overall strain across the skull arising from biting was reduced. Removing the ODs showed an opposite effect. In summary, our findings suggest that cranial ODs contribute to the mechanics of the skull, even when they are loosely attached.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.489
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207