MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096633213 · doi:10.1002/jmor.20059

The evolution, development and skeletal identity of the crocodylian pelvis: Revisiting a forgotten scientific debate

2012· article· en· W2096633213 on OpenAlexaff
Leon P. A. M. Claessens, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIschiumBiologyAnatomyEvolutionary biologyPelvisZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Unlike most tetrapods, in extant crocodylians the acetabulum is formed by only two of the three skeletal elements that constitute the pelvis, the ilium, and ischium. This peculiar arrangement is further confused by various observations that suggest the crocodylian pelvis initially develops from four skeletal elements: the ilium, ischium, pubis, and a novel element, the prepubis. According to one popular historical hypothesis, in crocodylians (and many extinct archosaurs), the pubis fuses with the ischium during skeletogenesis, leaving the prepubis as a distinct element, albeit one which is excluded from the acetabulum. Whereas the notion of a distinct prepubic element was once a topic of considerable interest, it has never been properly resolved. Here, we combine data gleaned from a developmental series of Alligator mississippiensis embryos, with a revised interpretation of fossil evidence from numerous outgroups to Crocodylia. We demonstrate that the modern crocodylian pelvis is composed of only three elements: the ilium, ischium, and pubis. The reported fourth pelvic element is an unossified portion of the ischium. Interpretations of pelvic skeletal homology have featured prominently in sauropsid systematics, and the unambiguous identification of the crocodylian pubis provides an important contribution to address larger scale evolutionary questions associated with locomotion and respiration.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.512

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations20
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207