MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078184309 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2013-0001

Age and growth in <i>Myledaphus bipartitus</i>, a Late Cretaceous freshwater guitarfish from Alberta, Canada

2013· article· en· W2078184309 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alycia E. Wilson, Michael G. Newbrey, Donald B. Brinkman, Todd D. Cook, Andrew G. Neuman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Tyrrell Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousBiologyGeographyEcologyFisheryPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Myledaphus bipartitus is a Late Cretaceous (75 Ma) freshwater guitarfish, commonly represented by teeth and vertebral centra. The species was first described in 1876, but until now, very little has been known about its ecology and life history. We analyzed the age and growth using 117 fossilized centra (74 hemisectioned) from the Oldman and Dinosaur Park formations of southern Alberta. The resulting estimated maximum age was 16 years. Radial distance (RD) at the estimated asymptotic growth was calculated, and average RD at birth and 3 years were compared with two extant marine species of Rhinobatos (R. productus and R. rhinobatos). Birth ring size ranged from 0.9 to 1.8 mm RD. At age three, centrum RD was between 2.8 and 4.6 mm RD for M. bipartitus and significantly less than R. productus and R. rhinobatos (5.0–6.6 mm RD). Myledaphus approached “asymptotic” growth at 7.8 mm RD in the growth equation. The growth trajectory of Myledaphus had a similar slope to the Rhinobatos species, but with significantly smaller centrum RD. Rhinobatos rhinobatos also outlived Myledaphus by 8 years.

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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207