MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101762639 · doi:10.1080/02724634.2013.726675

Aquatic adaptation, cranial kinesis, and the skull of the mosasaurine mosasaur<i>Plotosaurus bennisoni</i>

2013· article· en· W2101762639 on OpenAlexafffund
Aaron R. H. LeBlanc, Michael W. Caldwell, Johan Lindgren

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsQuadrate boneAnatomySkullBiologyHolotypeContext (archaeology)ZoologyPaleontologyTaxonomy (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT New anatomical observations of the holotype skull of Plotosaurus bennisoni from the Maastrichtian Moreno Formation of California, U.S.A., are used as a framework to examine cranial kinesis in derived members of the Mosasaurinae. Enlarged posteromedial flanges of the frontal and extensive lateral contacts of the prefrontal and postorbitofrontal contributed to increased rigidity along the frontoparietal suture (the mesokinetic joint). Sutural contacts of the parietal with the supraoccipital posteriorly and the prootic ventrally would have restricted metakinetic movements. Furthermore, the unusual shape of the epipterygoid, and its dorsal contact with the prootic and parietal, shows that the epipterygoid and pterygoid were probably not capable of anteroposterior movements. Most strikingly, Plotosaurus exhibits a tight association of the quadrate with the temporal arcade, suggesting that streptostyly was limited or lost in this derived mosasaurine, the loss of such a feature having never been described in a mosasaur. These charcteristics are placed in a functional context to examine aquatic adaptations in mosasaurs. As one of the most specialized mosasaurs known, the loss of cranial kinesis may have evolved as a result of its piscivorous diet.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.175
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 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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