MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607369018 · doi:10.1002/evan.21526

The evolutionary radiation of plesiadapiforms

2017· review· en· W2607369018 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary Silcox, Jonathan I. Bloch, Douglas Boyer, Stephen G. B. Chester, Sergi López‐Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Anthropology Issues News and Reviews · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough Hospital
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLeakey FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsArboreal locomotionBiologyAdaptive radiationEcologyZoologySpawn (biology)PrimateEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Very shortly after the disappearance of the non-avian dinosaurs, the first mammals that had features similar to those of primates started appearing. These first primitive forms went on to spawn a rich diversity of plesiadapiforms, often referred to as archaic primates. Like many living primates, plesiadapiforms were small arboreal animals that generally ate fruit, insects, and, occasionally, leaves. However, this group lacked several diagnostic features of euprimates. They also had extraordinarily diverse specializations, represented in eleven families and more than 140 species, which, in some cases, were like nothing seen since in the primate order. Plesiadapiforms are known from all three Northern continents, with representatives that persisted until at least 37 million years ago. In this article we provide a summary of the incredible diversity of plesiadapiform morphology and adaptations, reviewing our knowledge of all eleven families. We also discuss the challenges that remain in our understanding of their ecology and evolution.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations102
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionary Anthropology Issues News and ReviewsSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207