“Smile‐Obates”: Permanent Dental Development in the White‐Handed Gibbon (<i>Hylobates lar carpenteri</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tooth formation is not as well known as eruption among the Hylobatidae. To expand knowledge of variability in dental development in hylobatids, we described the relative timing of upper and lower permanent tooth initiation, mineralization, and completion in the white-handed gibbon (Hylobates lar carpenteri). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a wild-shot, known-sex sample of H. lar carpenteri, we micro-CT scanned 44 crania with permanent teeth forming, including a subset of 16 skulls with mandibles. We used these data to assess crypt, crown, and root formation. Each tooth received a dental score from 0 (no crypt initiation) to 12 (root apices closed). We used principal component and cluster analyses, among other tests, to examine variance and covariance among scores. RESULTS: First molar and central incisor formation was advanced over the rest of the dentition, while the premolars and second molar developed concurrently with one another. The canine crown initiated before the third molar yet reached root apical closure last. Overall patterns among dental scores were similar between upper and lower jaws, but the formation of lower anterior and premolar teeth was advanced by up to three formation stages. These patterns appeared invariant with respect to sex or pathology. DISCUSSION: H. lar carpenteri is characterized by relatively advanced central incisor formation, catch-up growth of the lateral incisor, and protracted canine development. Adjacent molar crown formation timing is staggered, as in other primates. The development of the relatively large canines in these short-faced apes highlights the myriad influences and competing demands on tooth formation and emergence.
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".