A Refined Guide for Aging Muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus) Based on Mandibular Examination v1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This protocol outlines three improved methods for aging muskoxen, along with guidance on selecting the most appropriate approach based on the available sample type. These refinements aim to enhance the accuracy and reliability of age determination. Tooth Eruption PatternTooth eruption is the most accurate method for estimating age in muskoxen up to 5 years old. Individuals older than this are classified as 5+ years. Previously, muskoxen over 3 years were typically grouped as 4+ years. This protocol introduces the first continuous eruption timeline by age in months, offering a more precise understanding of age-related dental changes. Mandible MorphometricsCaudal mandible length is the most informative morphometric for estimating age until growth ceases around 60 months old (5 years). This protocol validates the relationship between mandible growth and age, providing an additional metric for age estimation during the growth period. Cementum Annuli Analysis (CAA)CAA is used to estimate the age of adult muskoxen beyond the eruption and growth phases. Using known-age individuals, we found that CAA tends to underestimate actual age due to faint and thin annuli, which require a highly experienced examiner to interpret. This is the first evaluation of CAA validity and precision in muskoxen using known-age specimens.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".