MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3000189935 · doi:10.1111/joa.13134

Computed tomography analysis of the cranium of <i>Champsosaurus lindoei</i> and implications for the choristoderan neomorphic ossification

2020· article· en· W3000189935 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas W. Dudgeon, Hillary C. Maddin, David C. Evans, Jordan C. Mallon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSkullOssificationAnatomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Choristoderes are extinct neodiapsid reptiles that are well known for their unusual cranial anatomy, possessing an elongated snout and expanded temporal arches. Although choristodere skulls are well described externally, their internal anatomy remains unknown. An internal description was needed to shed light on peculiarities of the choristodere skull, such as paired gaps on the ventral surface of the skull that may pertain to the fenestra ovalis, and a putative neomorphic ossification in the lateral wall of the braincase. Our goals were: (i) to describe the cranial elements of Champsosaurus lindoei in three dimensions; (ii) to describe paired gaps on the ventral surface of the skull to determine if these are indeed the fenestrae ovales; (iii) to illustrate the morphology of the putative neomorphic bone; and (iv) to consider the possible developmental and functional origins of the neomorph. We examined the cranial anatomy of the choristodere Champsosaurus lindoei (CMN 8920) using high-resolution micro-computed tomography scanning. We found that the paired gaps on the ventral surface of the skull do pertain to the fenestrae ovales, an unusual arrangement that may be convergent with some plesiosaurs, some aistopods, and some urodeles. The implications of this morphology in Champsosaurus are unknown and will be the subject of future work. We found that the neomorphic bone is a distinct ossification, but is not part of the wall of the brain cavity or the auditory capsule. Variation in the developmental pathways of cranial bones in living amniotes was surveyed to determine how the neomorphic bone may have developed. We found that the chondrocranium and splanchnocranium show little to no variation across amniotes, and the neomorphic bone is therefore most likely to have developed from the dermatocranium; however, the stapes is a pre-existing cranial element that is undescribed in choristoderes and may be homologous with the neomorphic bone. If the neomorphic bone is not homologous with the stapes, the neomorph likely developed from the dermatocranium through incomplete fusion of ossification centres from a pre-existing bone, most likely the parietal. Based on the apparent morphology of the neomorph in Coeruleodraco, the neomorph was probably too small to play a significant structural role in the skull of early choristoderes and it may have arisen through non-adaptive means. In neochoristoderes, such as Champsosaurus, the neomorph was likely recruited to support the expanded temporal arches.

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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207