MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6884604303 · doi:10.1080/039.031.0611

Tooth-Like Scales in Early Devonian Eugnathostomes and the ‘Outside-In’ Hypothesis for the Origins of Teeth in Vertebrates

2011· article· en· W6884604303 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianVertebrateDentitionOriginationEvolution of mammalsTetrapod (structure)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Although teeth are considered one of the most important steps in vertebrate evolution, details of their origins are obscure. Two prominent and opposing theories for the evolution of the vertebrate dentition are current: the ‘Outside-in’ hypothesis and the ‘inside-out’ hypothesis. One of the main arguments against the ‘outside-in’ hypothesis is that, although similarities between teeth and scales have been observed, there is little fossil evidence of transitional forms between the two structures. Specimens of ischnacanthid acanthodians from the Man On The Hill (MOTH) locality in the Mackenzie Mountains of Canada provide the first unequivocal example of such transitional forms in an Early Devonian (Lochkovian) vertebrate assemblage. The head scales of these specimens are modified with proximity to the mouth to be extremely tooth-like. Three distinct morphotypes of modified cheek and lip scales are described. Their detailed similarity to teeth suggests that they are a result of the same developmental processes, and also suggests the existence of a field of gene expression near the mouth margin in which scales could be transformed into teeth. These transitional forms remove one of the chief objections to the ‘outside-in’ hypothesis for the origins of teeth in vertebrates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.238
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.015 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207