MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2758286981 · doi:10.1002/spp2.1088

The mylodontine ground sloth<i>Glossotherium tropicorum</i>from the late Pleistocene of Ecuador and Peru

2017· article· en· W2758286981 on OpenAlexaff
Gerardo De Iuliis, Cástor Cartelle, H. Gregory McDonald, François Pujos

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers in Palaeontology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersMuséum National d'Histoire Naturelle
KeywordsSlothPleistoceneXenarthraFaunaGeographyEcologyTaxonMegafaunaGenusBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New mylodontine (Xenarthra, Pilosa) sloth remains from the late Pleistocene tar seep localities of Corralito (Ecuador) and Talara (Peru) are described, and the taxonomic history of the extinct ground sloth genus Glossotherium is reviewed. Based on the new material and comparisons with Glossotherium robustum, Glossotherium wegneri , and the North American taxon, Paramylodon harlani , the species Glossotherium tropicorum is considered to be valid and a new definition of its diagnostic characters is provided. Glossotherium tropicorum is similar in size to Glossotherium robustum and Glossotherium wegneri but differs in several respects from these species, such as having a more elongated and slender skull. In this respect it more closely resembles Paramylodon harlani in North America, which is also similar in size. Glossotherium tropicorum is one of two mylodontine sloths found in the upper Pleistocene of north‐western South America, the other being Glossotherium wegneri . While both are present in this region their individual distributions did not overlap and the two species have not been recovered together in a fauna. The distribution of Glossotherium tropicorum is restricted to lowland coastal areas whereas Glossotherium wegneri is found inland and in the highland areas of the Andes, suggesting significant differences in their ecology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers in PalaeontologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207