Micro–computed tomographic scanning of the ear region of<i>Cainotherium</i>: character analysis and implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Most recent phylogenetic analyses place the Cainotheriidae within the Tylopoda, but doubts about this placement within Tylopoda have been persistent. The Cainotheriidae are well known from numerous specimens and their cranial anatomy is well documented from complete, partial and disarticulated cranial material. However, high-resolution computed tomographic (CT) scans can still provide additional data to resolve problems in the interpretation of the auditory region, and allow comparison with other tylopod and ruminant taxa. Cainotheriids share several features with various groups within the Tylopoda, including an enlarged mastoid fossa, an inflated auditory bulla filled with cancellous bone, the presence of a sinus venosus temporalis, and what has been interpreted as a large flange of the periotic enclosing the petrobasilar canal. The reconstruction of the petrobasilar canal has been difficult to interpret, as the published figures are unclear. A micro-CT scan of Cainotherium (YPM 25037) shows the morphology is more complex. The periotic shows a smaller flange that does not enclose the petrobasilar canal. The skull base shows different arrangement of bones from other artiodactyls, presumably as a result of the enlargement of the auditory bulla, which has also affected the course of the petrobasilar canal. The otic region of Cainotherium shows no resemblances to ruminants, and features of this region are consistent with the Cainotheriidae being either a sister taxon to Tylopoda + Ruminantia, or with inclusion in a tylopod grouping.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".