Graptoloid diversity and disparity became decoupled during the Ordovician mass extinction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphological study of extinct taxa allows for analysis of a diverse set of macroevolutionary hypotheses, including testing for change in the magnitude of morphological divergence, extinction selectivity on form, and the ecological context of radiations. Late Ordovician graptoloids experienced a phylogenetic bottleneck at the Hirnantian mass extinction (∼445 Ma), when a major clade of graptoloids was driven to extinction while another clade simultaneously radiated. In this study, we developed a dataset of 49 ecologically relevant characters for 183 species with which we tested two main hypotheses: (i) could the biased survival of one graptoloid clade over another have resulted from morphological selectivity alone and (ii) are the temporal patterns of morphological disparity and innovation during the recovery consistent with an interpretation as an adaptive radiation resulting from ecological release? We find that a general model of morphological selectivity has a low probability of producing the observed pattern of taxonomic selectivity. Contrary to predictions from theory on adaptive radiations and ecological speciation, changes in disparity and species richness are uncoupled. We also find that the early recovery is unexpectedly characterized by relatively low morphological disparity and innovation, despite also being an interval of elevated speciation. Because it is necessary to invoke factors other than ecology to explain the graptoloid recovery, more complex models may be needed to explain recovery dynamics after mass extinctions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".