Do predatory drill holes influence the transport and deposition of gastropod shells?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predatory gastropod drill holes are an abundant and easily identifiable signal of predation in ancient and modern molluscan shell assemblages. Many workers have used drill holes to interpret patterns of predation intensity and success in fossil assemblages. These studies are predicated on the assumption that the relative abundances of drilled and undrilled shells in an assemblage accurately reflect those of the community from which the shells were originally derived. The underlying assumption is that drilled and undrilled shells are transported into shell accumulations in the same manner. If this assumption is false, shell accumulations do not represent taphonomically unbiased samples, but rather preferentially sorted deposits from which conclusions about drilling predation cannot be made. To test the hypothesis that drilled and undrilled gastropod shells transport at different flow velocities, multiple transport trials were conducted on two morphologically distinct taxa, Olivella biplicata and Euspira lewisii. Individual specimens were placed in a recirculating flume tank and observed from rest (in stable orientation) until they were transported downstream. During each trial, flow velocity was slowly and incrementally increased, so as to avoid pulses of acceleration, until shells began to move downstream. Drilled and undrilled specimens of both taxa demonstrate statistically significant correlations between shell mass and average transport velocity. Similarly sized drilled and undrilled specimens of both taxa do not exhibit significant differences in transport velocity. These results indicate that predatory drill holes do not change the hydrodynamic properties of gastropod shells. Therefore, gastropod shell assemblages are not likely to be affected by differential transport and sorting of drilled and undrilled shells.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".