MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604096784 · doi:10.1111/pala.12290

Fossilization processes of graptolites: insights from the experimental decay of <i>Rhabdopleura</i> sp. (Pterobranchia)

2017· article· en· W2604096784 on OpenAlexafffund
Elena Beli, Stefano Piraino, Christopher B. Cameron

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsZooidTaphonomyPaleontologyBiologyPaleozoicExtant taxonAnnelidTaxonMacrofossilFossilizationFossil RecordGeologyAnatomyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Laboratory experiments documenting the decomposition pattern of extant organisms are used to reconstruct the anatomy and taphonomy of fossil taxa. The subclass Graptolithina (Hemichordata: Pterobranchia) is a significant fossil taxon of the Palaeozoic era, represented by just one modern genus, Rhabdopleura. The rich graptolite fossil record is characterized by an almost total absence of fossil zooids. Here we investigated the temporal decay pattern of Rhabdopleura sp. tubes, stolons and single zooids removed from the tubarium. Tubes showed decay after four days, when fuselli began to separate from the tube walls. This rapid loss may explain the absence of fuselli from some graptolite fossils. The black stolon did not show decay until day 155. One day after their removal, zooids quickly decomposed in the following temporal sequence: (1) tentacles; (2) ectoderm; (3) arms; (4) gut; (5) cephalic shield, leading to complete disappearance of recognizable body parts in the majority of experimental zooids within 64–104 h. The most resistant zooid features to decay (61 days) were black‐pigmented granules. These results indicate that tubes and the black stolon would persist for weeks across death, transport and burial, whereas a complete decay of zooid features occurs in few days, providing an explanation for the overall poor record of fossil graptolite zooids and suggesting that recorded silhouettes of fossil zooids may be attributed to fossil decay‐resistant pigments.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207