MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109620372 · doi:10.1002/spp2.1342

Extending the footprint record of Pareiasauromorpha to the Cisuralian: earlier appearance and wider palaeobiogeography of the group

2020· article· en· W3109620372 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Lorenzo Marchetti, Sebastian Voigt, Eudald Mujal, Spencer G. Lucas, Heitor Francischini, Josep Fortuny, Vincent Santucci

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers in Palaeontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversité de MontpellierUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPaleontologyPermianTetrapod (structure)GeologyFootprintGroup (periodic table)Structural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Pareiasauromorpha is one of the most important tetrapod groups of the Permian. Skeletal evidence suggests a late Kungurian origin in North America, whereas the majority of occurrences come from the Guadalupian and Lopingian of South Africa and Russia. However, Pareiasauromorpha footprints include the ichnogenus Pachypes , which is unknown from strata older than late Guadalupian. A revision of several Pachypes ‐like footprints from the Cisuralian–Guadalupian of Europe and North America confirm the occurrence of this ichnogenus and of the ichnospecies Pachypes ollieri comb. nov. beginning in the Artinskian. This is the earliest known occurrence of Pachype s and it coincides with the Artinskian reptile radiation. Based on a synapomorphy‐based track–trackmaker correlation, P. ollieri can be attributed to nycteroleter pareiasauromorphs such as Macroleter . Therefore, the earliest occurrences of pareiasauromorph footprints precede by at least 10 myr the earliest occurrence of this group in the skeletal record. Moreover, the palaeobiogeography of the group is extended to the Cisuralian and Guadalupian of western Europe.

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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers in PalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207