Similarities and differences in the ilia of Late Cretaceous anurans and urodeles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Screen-washing of matrix from 37 Upper Cretaceous microvertebrate localities in southern Utah, USA, yielded a rich sample of anuran disarticulated bones, including nearly 200 ilia. Because the bones are relatively small and delicate and were subject to pre-mortem transport and unavoidable damage when the fossiliferous matrix was collected and processed, none of the recovered ilia retained intact shafts. This means that features such as the form of the anterior end of the shaft and the presence and form of a dorsal crest cannot be used to identify the fossils. Urodele bones also are known from many of the same localities. When anuran and urodele ilia are isolated and missing much of their shafts, they are superficially similar, so it was important to reliably differentiate ilia of the two groups. Here we provide a list and brief descriptions of some of the features that we found useful for distinguishing between anuran and urodele ilia. These features relate to differences between the two groups in muscle attachments, contacts between pelvic bones, and structure of the acetabula. Because all of the features exhibit some variation, we recommend that they be used in combination when trying to distinguish between anuran and urodele ilia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".