Detecting the presence of different Retzius periodicities at the population level from repetitive linear enamel hypoplasia among <i>Lufengpithecus lufengensis</i> and <i>Pongo pygmaeus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Reconstruction of life histories for fossil and living primates draws on rate of enamel layering, termed Retzius periodicity (RP in days) expressed as surface perikymata, during dental crown formation. Disclosure of RP through thin sectioning is destructive; consequently, sample sizes are inadequate to detect the range of RPs present in discrete taxa. We propose an additional method to detect RPs at the population level based on twice-yearly average recurrence of linear enamel hypoplasia (rLEH) in apes shown by prior studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Casts of teeth from orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus) (n = 40) and Lufengpithecus lufengensis (n = 57) from Late Miocene Shihuiba, China, (133 and 138 LEH, respectively) were recorded with scanning electron microscope (SEM) and confocal microscopy to yield perikymata counts between episodes of LEH. Frequency distributions of aggregated perikymata counts between LEH were compared to frequency distribution of tooth-specific ratios of perikymata counts between successive LEH (this latter step removes effects of RP differences within a sample). RESULTS: Drawing on prior research, two successive intervals between LEH span 1 year on average. Ratios of successive to previous intervals between LEH show that orangutans and Lufengpithecus exhibit two asymmetric intervals centered on 5.3 and 6.7 months, likely reflecting the effect of axial tilt insolation on phenology. Estimated RPs are not unimodal but show a range from 7 to 12 in Lufenpithecus and 8 to 11 in Pongo, comparable to published values. DISCUSSION: Repetitive LEH is sufficiently regular to detect additional RPs which, in the case of Lufengpithecus, have yet to be demonstrated histologically.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".