<i>Caedichnus</i> , a New Ichnogenus Representing Predatory Attack on the Gastropod Shell Aperture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predatory traces, in which the tracemaker has damaged the prey animal's skeleton to kill and consume it, have a deep fossil history and have received much scientific attention. Several types of predatory traces have been assigned to ichnotaxa, but one of the most studied predatory traces, the wedge-shaped excision produced as a result of attacks mainly by crustaceans on the apertures of gastropod shells, has yet to be described as an ichnotaxon. We propose the ichnogenus Caedichnus to describe the shell damage produced by aperture peeling behavior. Caedichnus is produced by predators that are unable to crush their prey's shells outright. Depending on the predator's peeling ability and the prey's withdrawal depth within the shell, the trace can extend through several whorls of the shell. Aperture peel attacks may fail, allowing such damage to be repaired by surviving gastropods. Thus, the types of attacks that produce Caedichnus may exert selective pressure on prey to evolve better-defended shells (in the case of gastropods) or to inhabit better-defended shells (in the case of hermit crabs). The identification of these trace fossils will enhance our understanding of how predation influences the morphological, and even behavioral, evolution of prey organisms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".