Comparing predatory drillholes to taphonomic damage from simulated wave action on a modern gastropod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marine drilling predation, in which the predator bores a hole through shelled invertebrate prey, plays a role in the structure of benthic communities. As drilling often leaves the prey shell otherwise undamaged, the resulting holes are also an excellent proxy for drilling predation pressure in the fossil record. Considering that a large number of predation studies focus on drilling predation in the fossil record, it is crucial that we are able to distinguish true drilling predation from taphonomy. The purpose of this study is to determine damage on Olivella biplicata shells, drilled by naticid gastropods, is distinguishable from taphonomically produced damage to these shells. In addition, the potential for preferential breakage due to either the presence or whether absence of a drillhole was investigated. Drilled and non-drilled O. biplicata shells were tumbled to simulate wave action and were checked at intervals to record accumulated damage. Drilled and non-drilled shells do not show a significant difference in damage accumulated while undergoing simulated wave action. Taphonomic damage is unlikely to be mistaken for drilling damage, due to the jagged, irregular appearance of taphonomically produced holes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".