MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049199296 · doi:10.1666/10-049.1

Evidence for segment polarity during regeneration in the Devonian asteropygine trilobite<i>Greenops widderensis</i>

2011· article· en· W2049199296 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenneth J. McNamara, Megan E. Tuura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilobiteRegeneration (biology)PaleontologyPolarity (international relations)BiologyDevonianAnatomyTaphonomyGeologyOrdovicianCell biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A complete molted exoskeleton of the asteropygine phacopid trilobite Greenops widderensis Lieberman and Kloc, 1997 from the Middle Devonian (Givetian) Widder Formation in southwestern Ontario, Canada that has suffered predatory trauma provides insights into the sequence of regeneration of segments. The molt configuration is such that it is possible to interpret the molting technique used by the trilobite. Predatory trauma affected four areas of the exoskeleton. The pygidium shows loss of the spinose margin on one side and damage to a single spine on the other; one genal spine has been broken and partially regrown; and the posterior of the glabella has been removed. It is thought that the first three traumas occurred during life, as these areas affected show signs of exoskeletal regeneration. The fourth trauma probably occurred to the exuvium. Analysis of the degree of regeneration of the pygidial pleurae indicates that there was an anteroposterior polarity to the regeneration. Other examples in the literature suggest that this regeneration polarity pattern may have been widespread in trilobites. It is suggested that, as in modern arthropods and annelids, this sequential regeneration was under the control of segmentation polarity genes.

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)0.002
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 score0.139
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations16
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207