MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808672529 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0199

Loss in the making: absence of pelvic fins and presence of paedomorphic pelvic girdles in a Late Devonian antiarch placoderm (jawed stem-gnathostome)

2018· article· en· W2808672529 on OpenAlexafffund
France Charest, Zerina Johanson, Richard Cloutier

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLatvijas UniversitateUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
KeywordsBiologyNeotenyAppendageDevonianAnatomyVertebrateBipedalismEvolutionary biologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within jawed vertebrates, pelvic appendages have been modified or lost repeatedly, including in the most phylogenetically basal, extinct, antiarch placoderms. One Early Devonian basal antiarch, Parayunnanolepis , possessed pelvic girdles, suggesting the presence of pelvic appendages at the origin of jawed vertebrates; their absence in more derived antiarchs implies a secondary loss. Recently, paired female genital plates were identified in the Late Devonian antiarch, Bothriolepis canadensis , in the position of pelvic girdles in other placoderms. We studied these putative genital plates along an ontogenetic series of B. canadensis ; ontogenetic changes in their morphology, histology and elemental composition suggest they represent endoskeletal pelvic girdles composed of perichondral and endochondral bone. We suggest that pelvic fins of derived antiarchs were lost, while pelvic girdles were retained, but reduced, relative to Parayunnanolepis . This indicates developmental plasticity and evolutionary lability in pelvic appendages, shortly after these elements evolved at the origin of jawed vertebrates.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207