MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139438176 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500800

Suspension feeding in the enigmatic Ediacaran organism <i>Tribrachidium</i> demonstrates complexity of Neoproterozoic ecosystems

2015· article· en· W2139438176 on OpenAlexafffund
Imran A. Rahman, Simon A.F. Darroch, Rachel A. Racicot, Marc Laflamme

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Riverside
KeywordsEcosystemOrganismSuspension (topology)EcologyBiologyPaleontologyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first diverse and morphologically complex macroscopic communities appear in the late Ediacaran period, 575 to 541 million years ago (Ma). The enigmatic organisms that make up these communities are thought to have formed simple ecosystems characterized by a narrow range of feeding modes, with most restricted to the passive absorption of organic particles (osmotrophy). We test between competing feeding models for the iconic Ediacaran organism Tribrachidium heraldicum using computational fluid dynamics. We show that the external morphology of Tribrachidium passively directs water flow toward the apex of the organism and generates low-velocity eddies above apical "pits." These patterns of fluid flow are inconsistent with osmotrophy and instead support the interpretation of Tribrachidium as a passive suspension feeder. This finding provides the oldest empirical evidence for suspension feeding at 555 to 550 Ma, ~10 million years before the Cambrian explosion, and demonstrates that Ediacaran organisms formed more complex ecosystems in the latest Precambrian, involving a larger number of ecological guilds, than currently appreciated.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations86
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207