MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The skull of the Early Triassic archosauromorph reptile Prolacerta broomi and its phylogenetic significance

2004· article· en· W2059829771 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sean P. Modesto, Hans‐Dieter Sues

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California Museum of PaleontologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPremaxillaBiologySkullAnatomyQuadrate boneForamenNeurocraniumMaxillaPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Description of new and re-examination of previously described cranial remains of Prolacerta broomi Parrington allows reappraisal of the structure of the skull in this basal archosauromorph reptile. The ventral margin of the premaxilla is slightly deflected, and there is a relatively large lateral foramen in the maxilla that is bounded anteriorly by the premaxilla; both features are shared with the basal rhynchosaur Mesosuchus and the basal archosauriform Proterosuchus. Implantation of the marginal dentition is ankylothecodont: the teeth are rooted relatively deeply, bounded lingually by a deep wall of the jaw, and anchored to the jaw by bone of attachment. The pineal foramen varies in size from little more than a scar in the interparietal suture to a suboval opening several millimetres in diameter. Contrary to previous claims, the skull roof in Prolacerta was akinetic and quadrate mobility (streptostyly) was absent. Phylogenetic analysis of a previously published data matrix, modified by the addition of new anatomical data and reinterpretation of some characters, corroborates the hypotheses of the polyphyly of Prolacertiformes (Protorosauria) and of a close relationship between Prolacerta and Archosauriformes.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations99
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207