Compound biogenic structures resulting from ontogenetic variation: An example from a modern dipteran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several families of Diptera are known to be active burrowers. Fly larvae of the genus Symplecta (family Limoniidae) were observed in a sandy substrate of an orange grove in Lepe, SW Spain. Traces produced by Symplecta display: (1), a proximal segment characterized by a winding furrow trail; (2), an intermediate part consisting of burrow segments arranged in zigzag; and (3), a distal part formed by a complex U-shaped burrow. The most complex morphology is present in the intermediate zigzag burrow system, which varies from irregularly sinuous and curved in its most proximal part to spiraled. In the fossil record, the trace would be ascribed to different ichnotaxa depending on the part preserved. In fact, this is a compound trace recording multiple behavioural patterns. The winding furrow shows affinities with Helminthopsis, the zigzag burrows with Treptichnus, and the U-shaped burrow with Arenicolites. Furthermore, the spiral portion shows some similarities with Spirophycus and Spirodesmos. Interestingly, formation of these compound traces is connected with different ontogenetic stages of the producer. The winding and zigzag segments are produced, respectively, by Symplecta larvae and pupae for feeding purposes, whereas the U-shaped burrow is excavated during the end of pupal stage for protection until adulthood. In the fossil record, this incipient compound trace potentially may occur in lake-margin, fluvio-estuarine and overbank deposits, including levee, crevasse splay and pond deposits, forming part of the Scoyenia or the Mermia ichnofacies. Structures similar to those produced by modern diptera are known from freshwater ichnofaunas since the Devonian
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".