Bibliographic record
Abstract
The processing of plant food in mammals requires specialized mechanisms in order to sustain high rates of nutrient assimilation, and the evolution of herbivory in mammals can potentially be traced by examining changes in these structures. Conditions suitable for the preservation of soft tissues are exceedingly rare (Schaal and Ziegler 1993), and thus we cannot hope to trace the evolution of herbivory using structures of the stomach and intestinal tract. However, oral comminution of plant material is a nearly universal behavior among mammalian herbivores, owing to the problem of breaking down the plant cell walls composed of cellulose (Janis and Fortelius 1988). Fortunately, dental structures specialized for this purpose are well represented in the fossil record. One major group of Mesozoic mammals, the multituberculates, had already acquired masticatory mechanisms allowing herbivory (Hahn 1971; Krause 1982). However, the main mammalian radiation that led to modern herbivores probably occurred immediately following the extinction of the non-avian dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. That event must have opened many niches that previously had been inaccessible to mammals, judging from the high taxonomic and morphological rates of evolution across the Cretaceous–Paleocene boundary (Sloan 1987).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".