MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>Terminonaris</i>(Archosauria: Crocodyliformes): new material from Saskatchewan, Canada, and comments on its phylogenetic relationships

2001· article· en· W2179810858 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xiao‐Chun Wu, Anthony P. Russell, Stephen L. Cumbaa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologyCladeGenusContext (archaeology)ZoologyEvolutionary biologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A newly-discovered skeleton of Terminonaris (=Teleorhinus) robusta (=robustus) from the early Turonian marine deposits of east-central Saskatchewan affords the opportunity for a detailed description of the anatomy of this species and its placement in the context of other known species of this genus. The specific diagnosis of T. robusta and the generic diagnosis of Terminonaris are established. Terminonaris robusta differs from the type species T. browni mainly in size-related features. Teleorhinus mesabiensis Erickson, 1969 is placed into the synonymy of Terminonaris robusta. The genus can be diagnosed by features of the anterior end of the snout, suturai relationships of the bones surrounding the orbit, and the structure of the occiput. A phylogenetic analysis based upon data drawn from the new material suggests that Terminonaris is not a pholidosaurid but is, instead, closely related to Dyrosaurus. This analysis continues to support the hypothesis that long-snouted crocodyliforms of the traditional “mesosuchian grade” form a clade.

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 score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations104
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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