MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A RE‐EVALUATION OF SPHENACODONTID SYNAPSID MATERIAL FROM THE LOWER PERMIAN FISSURE FILLS NEAR RICHARDS SPUR, OKLAHOMA

2008· article· en· W1987631462 on OpenAlexaff
David C. Evans, Hillary C. Maddin, Robert R. Reisz

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of CalgaryRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPermianTetrapod (structure)PaleontologyGeologyFaunaLaurasiaFaunal assemblageVertebrateType localityGondwanaBiologyEcologyGenusStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Early Permian terrestrial vertebrate faunal assemblages of Laurasia are dominated by large ophiacodontid, sphenacodontid, and edaphosaurid synapsids. This pattern contrasts with the fauna recovered from the Early Permian fissure fill deposits near Richards Spur, Oklahoma, where derived nontherapsid synapsids are rare. The fragmentary remains of Thrausmosaurus serratidens constitute the only published report of Sphenacodontidae from this locality. Here, we re‐evaluate T. serratidens in light of new information on the faunal assemblage of this locality. We confirm that the type material of T. serratidens cannot be assigned to Sphenacodontidae and conclude that it pertains to an indeterminate varanopid. We also describe new material, including a partial maxilla, several isolated jaw fragments with teeth, an isolated precaniniform tooth and a posterior cervical vertebra that represents unequivocal sphenacodontid remains from the Richards Spur assemblage. This material is the first definitive record of a eupelycosaurian synapsid other than a varanopid from this important locality. Faunal similarities between Richards Spur and the Bromacker Quarry, Germany, may be reflective of upland terrestrial communities during the Early Permian.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207