Hinge modifications and musculature of strophomenoid brachiopods: examples across the Ordovician-Silurian boundary, Anticosti Island, Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six modifications to the hinge occur in strophomenoid brachiopods from Anticosti Island: (1) overhanging socket ridges; (2) posterolateral socket ridges along the interarea articulate with grooves on the posterior of teeth; (3) anteromedian dental notches articulate with the crests of socket ridges; (4) dental crenulations on the surfaces of teeth mesh with socket ridges; (5) denticles extend laterally to the cardinal extremities; and (6) the margin of the ventral interarea fits into a long socket along the dorsal interarea forming a lateral tooth. Denticulate hinges and dental notches that typify Silurian and Devonian strophomenids begin in the fauna of the Ellis Bay Formation. Thus the most important interval of strophomenid faunal turnover was at the base of the Gamachian (the base of the Hirnantian) and not at the OrdovicianSilurian boundary. Muscle attachment pads in the delthyrial cavity do not correspond to the positions of either the adductor or diductor muscle scars. Pedicle adjustor muscles in modern brachiopods occupy this position. The round gap between the median fold of the pseudodeltidium and groove on chilidium is proposed as the point of emergence of the pedicle muscle. The tiny foramen, commonly sealed early in growth, is suggested to be part of a neanic water-intake system, active before the growth of the cardinal process in ephebic shells. Once the cardinal process appeared, the foramen was blocked. Recurring types of strophomenid ornamentation, such as posteriorly steepened rugae and checkerboard ornamentation, may have served as a plow to redistribute sediment as the shell was pulled backwards along the pedicle.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".