MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186425307 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0251832

The petrosal and basicranial morphology of Protoceras celer

2021· article· en· W3186425307 on OpenAlexafffund
Selina Viktor Robson, Brendon Seale, Jessica M. Theodor

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsSinai Health SystemLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of CalgaryAmerican Museum of Natural History
KeywordsMorphology (biology)SkullLineage (genetic)BiologyPhylogenetic treeAnatomyPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyZoologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protoceratids are an extinct family of endemic North American artiodactyls. The phylogenetic position of protoceratids in relation to camelids and ruminants has been contentious for over a century. The petrosal morphology of basal (Leptotragulus) and derived (Syndyoceras) protoceratids has suggested that protoceratids are closely related to ruminants, whereas a prior description of a disarticulated intermediate protoceratid petrosal (Protoceras celer) indicated that protoceratids were closely related to camelids. This contradictory evidence implied that there were several character reversals within the protoceratid lineage and brought into question the utility of basicranial characters in artiodactyl phylogenetics. Here, we provide descriptions of an additional P. celer petrosal. The descriptions are based on data produced by computed tomography scans, which allowed us to image the petrosal in situ in the skull. Our results indicate that the petrosal morphology of P. celer is similar to that of other protoceratids, implying that, contrary to previous evidence, petrosal morphology is conserved within the Protoceratidae.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207