MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Extrinsic labyrinth infillings imply open endolymphatic ducts in Lower Devonian osteostracans, acanthodians, and putative chondrichthyans

2001· article· en· W2179676874 on OpenAlexaff
Sarda Sahney, Mark V. H. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianDolomiteGeologyBiologyEndolymphatic sacPaleontologyAnatomyMineralogyInner ear

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Acanthodians, osteostracans, and putative chondrichthyans from the Lower Devonian (Lochkovian) ‘MOTH’ locality are found to have granular labyrinth infillings located immediately posterior to the orbits and composed of fine, sand-sized particles. They were examined under light and scanning electron microscopes and an elemental analysis (EDX) was performed. The infillings contain large proportions of silica, calcium carbonate, and dolomite, as well as minor proportions of elements such as aluminum, iron, and potassium. These results were similar to elemental analysis of the rock matrix. The inability of the fish to manufacture some of the minerals confirms that the labyrinth infilling consists at least partly of extrinsic grains. Endolymphatic pores, the openings through which this material probably entered the labyrinth, are seen in osteostracans, but have seldom been reported in acanthodians and never in basal (putative) chondrichthyans. No undoubted otoliths were seen in any of the specimens. The presence of similar statoconia, including extrinsic grains, in all three groups indicates a common inner ear physiology and presence of open endolymphatic ducts. The phylogenetic distribution of this feature suggests that it is primitive for osteostracans + gnathostomes, and that placoderm ancestors also had open endolymphatic ducts that functioned to allow entry of extrinsic grains into the labyrinth.

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 categoriesInsufficient 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations26
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vertebrate PaleontologySame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207