MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006821023 · doi:10.1080/08912960903302128

Agamid lizard (Agamidae: Uromastycinae) from the lower Oligocene of Egypt

2009· article· en· W2006821023 on OpenAlexaff
Robert B. Holmes, Alison M. Murray, Prithijit S. Chatrath, Yousry Attia, Elwyn L. Simons

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAgamidaePaleogenePaleontologySquamataGeologyCretaceous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agamid lizards are currently found in Africa, Asia, the eastern Mediterranean region and Australia. Together with the Chamaeleonidae and some extinct basal forms, they comprise the Acrodonta, lizards with acrodont dentition. The Acrodonta have been suggested to have a Gondwanan origin, with the oldest members found in the Triassic of India. The first agamids are known from the Late Cretaceous of Asia, and the group is widely distributed in the northern hemisphere throughout much of the Paleogene. However, the fossil history of Acrodonta on the Afro-Arabian plate is extremely limited: a single jaw fragment bearing acrodont dentition, possibly attributable to Agamidae, has been reported from the Paleogene of Morocco, and material identified as agamid was reported from the Oligocene of Oman. We here add to the African record the first clear evidence of Agamidae, represented by several jaws with attached teeth from earliest Oligocene deposits of the Jebel Qatrani Formation in the Fayum Depression, Egypt. Characters of the teeth, including very rounded labial surface, shearing edges concave lingually, shearing tip crescentic and accessory cusps absent, are similar to those of Uromastyx. Species of Uromastyx currently inhabit the Saharan and Somalian regions of Africa and adjacent Arabia.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical BiologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207