MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111669477 · doi:10.1671/2371

A new, unusual castorid (Rodentia) from the earliest Miocene of Nebraska

2003· article· en· W2111669477 on OpenAlexaff
William W. Korth, Natalia Rybczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFossorialBiologyCheek teethCladeSister groupMonophylyTaxonSkullPhylogenetic treeZoologyAnatomyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migmacastor procumbodens, gen. et sp. nov. is described from the late Arikareean of Nebraska based on a nearly complete skull. The new taxon exhibits various incisal specializations (e.g., incisors elongated along longitudinal axis, procumbent upper incisors) that are associated with tooth-digging behavior in modern rodents. Migmacastor does not belong in the Palaeocastorinae, the previously recognized fossorial clade of beavers, nor in any other castorid subfamily. Phylogenetic analysis indicates it is more derived than Agnotocastorinae and is a sister taxon to a monophyletic clade of beavers composed of both fossorial and semiaquatic taxa (Castorinae + Palaeocastorinae + Castoroidinae). Migmacastor is united to the latter unnamed clade by five unambiguous characters: lack of P3; upper tooth rows that diverge posteriorly; P4 larger than molars; smooth enamel on cheek teeth; and longitudinally grooved palate. Preliminary phylogenetic and morphological evidence suggest that tooth-digging behavior arose at least twice in North American beavers.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations21
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vertebrate PaleontologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207