Suture obliteration patterns in wolves and a comparison to dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age-related patterns in cranial suture and synchondrosis obliteration in 371 known-age North American grey wolves (Canis lupus) are examined to assess their utility in estimating the age of archaeological and paleontological wolf crania. Differences in age-related obliteration patterns between these wolves and 576 known-age domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) also are explored. Domestication has likely altered the growth and development of dog crania in relation to that of wolves, but these processes remain poorly understood. Wolf total suture obliteration score and age were positively correlated, indicating that the level of suture obliteration can be used to track age to some extent. Wolf sex and dietary patterns had no meaningful effects on this correlation. Mesocephalic or dolichocephalic dogs generally begin exhibiting more extensive suture obliteration than wolves during early adulthood, at about 2-4 years of age. This pattern of more extensive obliteration persists throughout the lifespan, with dogs tending to experience more obliteration in the observed sutures and synchondroses. Several interrelated factors may contribute to this pattern, all outcomes of domestication, including differences in physical strains in the cranium, alteration of development and ageing, and the emergence of diverse head shapes that relate in part to suture closure timing.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".