MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126377699 · doi:10.1080/02724631003621870

Redescription and rediagnosis of the tylosaurine mosasaur <i>Hainosaurus pembinensis</i> Nicholls, 1988, as <i>Tylosaurus pembinensis</i> (Nicholls, 1988)

2010· article· en· W2126377699 on OpenAlexaffabout
Timon S. Bullard, Michael W. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuadrate boneContext (archaeology)DorsumChevron (anatomy)TaxonBiologyKey (lock)ZoologyPaleontologyAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Tylosaurus pembinensis (Mosasauridae; Tylosaurini), from the middle Campanian Pembina Member of the Pierre Shale, exposed near Morden, Manitoba, Canada, is redescribed and removed from the genus Hainosaurus. In support of our reassignment, we highlight incorrect diagnostic features in the original description that were used as support for the assignment of the new species to Hainosaurus (e.g., small suprastapedial process of the quadrate and the presence of 54 vertebrae in the dorsal and pygal series [33 dorsals and 21 pygals]). In contrast, we note that the fully prepared quadrate possesses key Tylosaurus features such as a moderately large-sized suprastapedial process. We also report that of the original 54 ‘pre-chevron’-bearing vertebrae, that 26 are from a second, unrelated species of mosasaur. Of the 29 remaining vertebrae, it is difficult, due to poor preservation, to identify which of these elements are pygals. Although the exact pre-chevron count is unclear, the preserved remains clearly do not support a diagnosis of a high pygal count consistent with Hainosaurus. In recharacterizing Tylosaurus pembinensis, we discuss a number of problematic characters used to diagnose Hainosaurus, in the context of diagnosing Tylosaurus and not for the purpose of revising the European taxon Hainosaurus bernardi.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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