Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examines whether larger enamel prism diameters accommodate a greater enamel volume from the enamel-dentine junction (EDJ) to the outer-enamel surface (OES) in primate molars, and how prism size relates to enamel thickness and crown location. DESIGN: We assessed variation in enamel prism diameter in relation to crown location and enamel thickness in catarrhine lower molars (n = 14 species) and one platyrrhine. Prism diameter and enamel thickness were recorded in four locations (lingual lateral; lingual cuspal; buccal cuspal; buccal lateral), using a buccal-lingual section through the centre of the mesial cusps. Ten prism diameter readings were collected at inner (near the EDJ), outer (near the OES) and middle (between the two locations) enamel for each location. RESULTS: Mean prism diameter values for each species were similar (range: 4.06 µm to 5.81 µm). Prism diameter enlarged from inner to outer enamel, suggesting larger prisms help accommodate the increase in enamel volume from the EDJ to the OES. Average prism diameter does not associate with enamel thickness. Instead, cuspal positions had significantly smaller prism diameter at the EDJ than lateral positions, and larger prism sizes at the OES, leading to an overall similar prism diameter mean for all positions (Lingual lateral: 5.11 µm; Lingual cuspal: 5.04 µm; Buccal cuspal: 4.78 µm; Buccal lateral: 4.99 µm). CONCLUSIONS: Our study revealed consistent average enamel prism diameters in various crown locations of lower primate molars, potentially contributing to the mechanical integrity and functional optimization of enamel in primates.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".