MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE CARBONIFEROUS FISH GENERA <i>STREPSODUS</i> AND <i>ARCHICHTHYS</i> (SARCOPTERYGII: RHIZODONTIDA): CLARIFYING 150 YEARS OF CONFUSION

2006· article· en· W2035956656 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan E. Jeffery

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarboniferousGenusPaleontologySynonym (taxonomy)AutapomorphyConfusionCharacidaeDevonianSpecies nameGeologyTaxonZoologyBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The Carboniferous genus Strepsodus contains several described species, but has been mired in taxonomic confusion for nearly 150 years. The little‐known genus Archichthys (with two described species) is usually treated as a junior synonym of Strepsodus . These problems have been caused by, among other things, the poor quality of most specimens, and a heavy reliance on tooth and scale morphology when erecting new species. Both genera are known from Upper and Lower Carboniferous river and lake deposits in the UK, particularly coal shales, cementstones and freshwater limestones. However, Strepsodus has also been discovered at a number of North American localities (e.g. Greer in Iowa, USA, and Horton Bluff in Nova Scotia, Canada) and more recently in Australia (Ducabrook, Queensland). Rhizodontid remains from two Upper Devonian sites (one in Colombia, one in Turkey) have been attributed to Strepsodus , due to a misunderstanding of the defining characteristics (autapomorphies) of the genus. This paper reviews what is known of Strepsodus and Archichthys , and advocates that each be treated as a monospecific genus until reliable morphological evidence of further speciation is found. A neotype specimen for Strepsodus sauroides is proposed, and a check‐list of published rhizodontid species is appended.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207