MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161915471 · doi:10.2108/zsj.24.1012

Osteological Morphometrics of Australian Chelonioid Turtles

2007· article· en· W2161915471 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Troy Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueZOOLOGICAL SCIENCE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOsteologyBiologyAllometryMorphometricsSkullAnatomyMandible (arthropod mouthpart)ZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extant and fossil Australian chelonioid turtles were examined for 57 osteological morphometric variables. Data were analysed using principal components analysis and canonical variates analysis, after Burnaby isometric 'size' removal, as well as multivariate allometry. Results indicate that Lepidochelys spp. are proportionately differentiated from other Cheloniidae. The majority of chelonioid osteological variables scale isometrically, with less than a third exhibiting positive or negative allometry. Skull length and width, postero-ventral skull, mandible length, scapular and pubic variables are found to be useful for differentiating between extant and extinct chelonioids. Skull length and width, mandible height, jaw symphysis length, premaxilla height, femoral length, scapular, pelvic, plastral and rib variables are established as useful differentiators of cheloniids. Australian fossil protostegids are morphometrically more similar to cheloniids than dermochelyids, and no cranial morphometric evidence could be found for the presence of more than one protostegid species. Some osteological allometric variables may be valuable for use in determining the relationships of chelonioids; however these should be examined in conjunction with morphology-based cladistic analyses to test established phylogenies.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZOOLOGICAL SCIENCESame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207