MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147825009 · doi:10.5252/g2009n4a789

Dryopithecins, Darwin, de Bonis, and the European origin of the African apes and human clade

2009· article· en· W2147825009 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Begun

Bibliographic record

VenueGeodiversitas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladeDarwin (ADL)HominidaeAncestorFossil RecordMost recent common ancestorGenealogyEthnologyHuman evolutionCharles darwinEvolutionary biologyBiological evolutionGeographyHistoryDarwinismBiologyPaleontologyArchaeologyPhylogeneticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Darwin famously opined that the most likely place of origin of the common ancestor of African apes and humans is Africa, given the distribution of its living descendents. But it is infrequently recalled that immediately afterwards, Darwin, in his typically thorough and cautious style, noted that a fossil ape from Europe, Dryopithecus, may instead represent the ancestors of African apes, which dispersed into Africa from Europe. Louis de Bonis and his collaborators were the first researchers in the modem era to echo Darwin's suggestion about apes from Europe. Resulting from their spectacular discoveries in Greece over several decades, de Bonis and colleagues have shown convincingly that African ape and human clade members (hominines) lived in Europe at least 9.5 million years ago. Here I review the fossil record of hominoids in Europe as it relates to the origins of the hominines. While I differ in some details with Louis, we are in complete agreement on the importance of Europe in determining the fate of the African ape and human clade. There is no doubt that Louis de Bonis is a pioneer in advancing our understanding of this fascinating time in our evolutionary history.

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 score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations93
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeodiversitasSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207