MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890462859 · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-32202-x

Exceptional dinosaur fossils reveal early origin of avian-style digestion

2018· article· en· W2890462859 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiaoting Zheng, Xiaoli Wang, Corwin Sullivan, Xiaomei Zhang, Fucheng Zhang, Yan Wang, Feng Li, Xing Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsCladePelletsBiologyLizardZoologyTaxonFish <Actinopterygii>Evolutionary biologyEcologyPaleontologyPhylogeneticsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birds have a highly specialized and efficient digestive system, but when this system originated remains uncertain. Here we report six gastric pellets attributable to the recently discovered 160-million-year-old troodontid dinosaur Anchiornis, which is among the key taxa for understanding the transition to birds. The gastric pellets contain lightly acid-etched lizard bones or fish scales, and some are associated with Anchiornis skeletons or even situated within the oesophagus. Anchiornis is the earliest and most basal theropod known to have produced gastric pellets. In combination with other lines of evidence, the pellets suggest that a digestive system resembling that of modern birds was already present in basal members of the Paraves, a clade including troodontids, dromaeosaurids, and birds, and that the evolution of modern avian digestion may have been related to the appearance of aerial locomotion in this lineage.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207