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 genusLystrosaurushas 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 ofLystrosaurus, leads to the conclusion that the genus is not a “disaster taxon”. Further, the known biostratigraphy and tree topologies of species ofLystrosaurusdo not satisfy more recent definitions that attribute diversification to disaster species. At most, species ofLystrosaurusthat form the informal “Lystrosaurusabundant 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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.022
Scholarly communication0.0040.013
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
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 head0.014
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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