MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905376580 · doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zly080

An adult specimen of <i>Sinocyamodus xinpuensis</i> (Sauropterygia: Placodontia) from Guanling, Guizhou, China

2018· article· en· W2905376580 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Wang, Chun Li, Xiao‐Chun Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPlant and Fungal Species Descriptions
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of Nature
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsCarapacePostcraniaBiologyAnatomySkullPaleontologyZoologyTaxonCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyamodontoidea is an armoured lineage of Placodontia, the basal-most clade of Sauropterygia. It was unknown in China until Sinocyamodus xinpuensis was reported in 2000, on the basis of a subadult specimen. Here we describe the first adult specimen of this taxon. This nearly complete specimen was determined to be S. xinpuensis by the stout triangular skull with a short snout, the nasal–nasal contact, a carapace with three types of osteoderms developing rows in meridional ridges and vaulted zones on both sides and the phalangeal formula of 2-3-4-4-2. In this study, the diagnosis of S. xinpuensis is revised based on the new specimen, and the morphological interpretation, especially of the postcranial anatomy, is given. With new information from the adult specimen, our phylogenetic analysis supports the sister-group relationship of Sinocyamodus to Cyamodus. The differences between this new adult specimen and the subadult type specimen reveal ontogenetic variations in morphology, such as the growth of the posterior portion of the skull, the number of osteoderms and the configuration of the carapace.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPlant and Fungal Species DescriptionsFrench-language works237,207