MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132259680 · doi:10.1139/e03-031

A new species of catfish (Claroteidae, <i>Chrysichthys</i>) from an Eocene crater lake in East Africa

2003· article· en· W2132259680 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alison M. Murray, Lisa A. Budney

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersNational Geographic Society
KeywordsCatfishBarbelGenusFaunaBiologyActinopterygiiPaleontologyRange (aeronautics)ZoologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several specimens of a fossil catfish, collected from the Eocene Mahenge site of Tanzania, are identified as a member of Chrysichthys (Claroteidae) based on several features, including long, thick pectoral and dorsal spines and the presence of nasal barbels. The fossil fish is described as a new species based on unique characters (e.g., 20 principal caudal fin rays). The fossil record of Siluriformes in Africa includes few articulated skeletons; isolated spines or crania are more common. Although several African Eocene catfish crania previously have been described in their own genera, the Mahenge specimens preserve details that indicate their relationship to the living genus Chrysichthys, and therefore the new species is included in that genus instead of being given its own. Previously, the oldest record for Chrysichthys was from the Pliocene; these specimens extend the range of Chrysichthys back to the Eocene. The Mahenge locality itself is significant because it contributes knowledge of the poorly known sub-Saharan Eocene fauna and flora.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207