MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new genus of Triassic actinopterygian with an evaluation of deepened flank scales in fusiform fossil fishes

2004· article· en· W2173773177 on OpenAlexaff
Raoul J. Mutter, Annette Herzog

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActinopterygiiPaleontologyBiologyGenusFlankSkullEvolutionary biologyGeologyZoologyAnatomyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Revision of the genus Peltoperleidus leads to recognition of a single persisting deepened scale row as the main diagnostic feature for the newly established genus Allisolepis gen. nov. The counts of deepened scale rows are taken to be very consistent in all species assigned to Peltoperleidus and Allisolepis gen. nov., since they can be perfectly matched with skull bone patterns and counts of lepidotrichia. An initial evaluation shows that presence and array of variably deepened flank scales in fusiform fossil fishes have previously been underestimated in terms of their occurrence and as a putatively phylogenetic signal: the counts of deepened flank scales show some negative correlation with body size in fusiform fishes up to a certain standard length only, and occur predominantly in smallest fishes in the Middle Triassic. No significant correlation exists between scale row counts and standard length with respect to taxonomy; although interrelationships of these actinopterygians are still poorly understood, it appears likely that similar patterns of deepened scale rows may have developed independently during the Early-Middle Triassic.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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