Hábitos de vida de la serpiente cretácica Dinilysia patagonica Woodward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumen. Se discuten las reconstrucciones paleoecologicas de la serpiente del Cretacico de Patagonia Dinilysia patagonicaen relacion a modos de vida hipoteticos para una “serpiente ancestral” y a los ecotipos de las serpientes basales. La comparacion de la orientacion de la orbita (e.g.ojos expuestos dorsalmente) y aspectos de la osteologia postcraneana en diversos tipos ecologicos de serpientes no permiten inferir claramente los modos de vida y habitos. En este trabajo se interpreta que Dinilysia habria sido una serpiente parcialmente terrestre cuya morfologia pudo haber sido adaptativa para habitos semi-acuaticos (lagos y rios estacionales) o semi-fosoriales (dunas e interdunas). Serpientes de grandes dimensiones y parcialmente terrestres que podrian haber estado capacitadas para predar sobre presas de pequeno a mediano tamano habrian aparecido en la filogenia del grupo con anterioridad a lo supuesto. Abstract. LIFE HABIT OF THECRETACEOUSSNAKE DINILYSIA PATAGONICA WOODWARD. Palaeoecological reconstructions of the Patagonian Cretaceous snake Dinilysia patagonica are discussed in relation to hypothesized life modes for an “ancestral snake”, and in relation to the ecotypes of basal snakes. A comparison of orbit orientation (e.g., dorsally exposed eyes) and aspects of postcranial osteology in diverse ecological types of snakes does not clearly resolve life modes and habits. Dinilysia is interpreted here as a partially terrestrial snake whose morphology may have been adaptable to semi-aquatic (seasonal lagoons and streams) or semi-fossorial habits (dune fields and interdune basin deposits). Partially terrestrial snakes with large bodies that may have fed on small to medium-sized prey items would have appeared earlier in snake phylogeny than has been previously supposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".