Not all written in stone: interdisciplinary syntheses in echinoderm paleontology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fossil record of the Echinodermata is relatively complete, and is represented by specimens retaining an abundance of features comparable to that found in extant forms. This yields a half-billion-year record of evolutionary novelties unmatched in any other major group, making the Echinodermata a primary target for studies of biological change. Not all of this change can be understood by studying the rocks alone, leading to synthetic research programs. Study of literature from the past 20 years indicates that over 1400 papers on echinoderm paleontology appeared in that time, and that overall productivity has remained almost constant. Analysis of papers appearing since 1990 shows that research is driven by new finds including, but not restricted to, possible Precambrian echinoderms, bizarre new edrioasteroids, early crinoids, exquisitely preserved homalozoans, echinoids at the K-T boundary, and Antarctic echinoids, stelleroids, and crinoids. New interpretations of echinoderm body wall homologies, broad-scale syntheses of embryological information, the study of developmental trajectories through molecular markers, and the large-scale ecological and phenotypic shifts being explored through morphometry and analyses of large data sets are integrated with study of the fossils themselves. Therefore, recent advances reveal a remarkable and continuing synergistic expansion in our understanding of echinoderm evolutionary history.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".