MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035405514 · doi:10.1111/1475-4983.00194

A Primitive Late Triassic ‘ictidosaur’ from Rio Grande Do Sul, Brazil

2001· article· en· W2035405514 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José F. Bonaparte, Jorge Ferigolo, Ana María Ribeiro

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDentitionSkullPaleontologyGeologyAnatomyDorsumBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A primitive ‘ictidosaur’ from lower Norian beds of southern Brazil, Riograndia guaibensis gen. et sp. nov., represented by a fragmentary skull and a lower jaw bearing a complete dentition, shows a more generalized morphology than Chaliminia from the Upper Triassic of Argentina and PachygenelusDiarthrognathus from the Lower Jurassic of South Africa, Canada and Greenland. The frontal bone borders the orbit, and ventrally contacts the dorsal process of the palatine. The secondary bony palate extends back to the last postcanine. I1 and i2 are reduced, whereas I2‐3 and i1 are hypertrophied. Both PC 1–7 and pc 1–7 have blade‐like crowns without cingula and with 5–9 small sharp cuspules. The upper postcanine crowns are semicircular in labial view with the cuspules around their margins. The lower postcanine crowns are asymmetrical with most of the cuspules dorsodistally distributed. The possible origin of this peculiar dentition is interpreted as the retention of the juvenile dentition of ancestors. The hypothesis that Riograndia guaibensis and the so‐called ‘ictidosaurs’ might have been derived from gomphodont cynodonts is presented.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations69
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207