MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111685197 · doi:10.3389/feart.2020.610463

The Disaster Taxon Lystrosaurus: A Paleontological Myth

2020· article· en· W3111685197 on OpenAlexaff
Sean P. Modesto

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtinction eventTaxonPaleontologyBiotaExtinction (optical mineralogy)GenusEcologyGeologyPermian–Triassic extinction eventCladogenesisBiostratigraphyPhanerozoicGeographyPhylogenetic treeBiologyCladeBiological dispersalCenozoic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The term “disaster species” was a term originally conceived to describe marine microfossils that exhibited profound abundances in the wake of a biological crisis. The term was expanded in the 1990s to describe (as “disaster taxa”) opportunistic taxa that dominated their biota numerically (“bloomed”) during the survival interval of a mass extinction event. The Permo-Triassic tetrapod genus Lystrosaurus has been cited regularly as a “disaster taxon” of the end-Permian mass extinction. A review of the definitions that have been developed for disaster taxa, and data from recent biostratigraphic and phylogenetic studies that include species of Lystrosaurus , leads to the conclusion that the genus is not a “disaster taxon”. Further, the known biostratigraphy and tree topologies of species of Lystrosaurus do not satisfy more recent definitions that attribute diversification to disaster species. At most, species of Lystrosaurus that form the informal “ Lystrosaurus abundant zone” in the lower Katberg Formation, Lower Triassic of South Africa, could be described as opportunistic species.

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)0.001
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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207