MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cranial anatomy of<i>Ennatosaurus tecton</i>(Synapsida: Caseidae) from the Middle Permian of Russia and the evolutionary relationships of Caseidae

2008· article· en· W2175832093 on OpenAlexaff
Hillary C. Maddin, Christian A. Sidor, Robert R. Reisz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsAmorfix (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAutapomorphySister groupAnatomyCladePhylogenetic treeBiologyPermianParaphylyCharacter evolutionPaleontologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed description of the Middle Permian Russian caseid Ennatosaurus tecton shows that three autapomorphies distinguish it from other caseids: a broad anterior ramus of the jugal, a large contribution of the frontal to the dorsal orbital margin, and a relatively narrow parasphenoid body. Phylogenetic analysis of Caseidae yields a single most parsimonious tree and its topology posits Ennatosaurus tecton as the sister taxon to the clade of the North American caseids Angelosaurus dolani and Cotylorhynchus romeri. Phylogenetic analysis supports the position of Oromycter dolesorum from the Lower Permian Richards Spur locality as the most basal member of Caseidae. In addition, the genus Casea is resolved as paraphyletic, whereby C. rutena forms the sister taxon to the clade containing E. tecton, C. romeri, and A. dolani. The current topology reveals that the pattern of dental complexity in terms of the number of apical cuspules is homoplasious, cautioning against its use as a unidirectional phylogenetic character.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations54
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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