Table_2_Behavioral strategies of prehistoric and historic children from dental microwear texture analysis.pdf
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction<p>Reconstructing the dietary and behavioral strategies of our hominin ancestors is crucial to understanding their evolution, adaptation, and overall way of life. Teeth in general, and dental microwear specifically, provide a means to examine these strategies, with posterior teeth well positioned to tell us about diet, and anterior teeth helping us examine non-dietary tooth-use behaviors. Past research predominantly focused on strategies of adult individuals, leaving us to wonder the role children may have played in the community at large. Here we begin to address this by analyzing prehistoric and historic children through dental microwear texture analysis of deciduous anterior teeth.</p>Materials and Methods<p>Four sample groups were used: Neandertals (N = 8), early modern humans (N = 14), historic Egyptians from Amarna (N = 19) and historic high-Arctic Inuit from Point Hope, Alaska (N = 6). Anterior deciduous teeth were carefully cleaned, molded, and cast with high-resolution materials. Labial surfaces were scanned for dental microwear textures using two white-light confocal microscopes at the University of Arkansas, and a soft filter applied to facilitate data comparisons.</p>Results and Discussion<p>Results show that dental microwear texture analysis successfully differentiated the samples by all texture variables examined (anisotropy, complexity, scale of maximum complexity, and two variants of heterogeneity). Interestingly, the Neandertal and Point Hope children had similar mean values across all the texture variables, and both groups were significantly different from the Amarna, Egyptian children. These differences suggest diversity in abrasive load exposure and participation in non-dietary anterior tooth-use behaviors. Further analyses and an expanded sample size will help to strengthen the data presented here, but our results show that some prehistoric and historic children took part in similar behaviors as their adult counterparts.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.926 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".