Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vertebrate inclusions in amber deposits are rare in the fossil record, known for only a few localities and time slices. Yet their 3D preservation of both hard and soft tissues offer paleontologists a detailed glimpse into the biology of extinct life that is not possible through other preservation methods. Here we will discuss a new study on a previously unreported fossil lizard specimen preserved in amber that has been housed in the collections of the Queen’s Miller Natural History museum for decades. Our goal is to establish the provenance of the sample as well the identity of the entombed lizard. Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) we not only confirmed the specimen’s authenticity but have gained insight into how its spectra compares to samples from known localities to aid in confirming its source. We are employing stable isotopic analysis to further refine our knowledge of this specimen’s original location as well as the depositional environment. Finally, in conjunction with colleagues at McGill University we have CT scanned the sample and created high-resolution 3D images of the lizard, allowing us to analyze its evolutionary biology and possibly discover a new 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".