MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220950647 · doi:10.1080/08912963.2021.2007243

A dromaeosaurid-like claw from the Upper Cretaceous of southern France

2022· article· en· W4220950647 on OpenAlexaff
Natan Santos Brilhante, Tainá Constância de França, Fabiano Castro, Leandro Sanches da Costa, Philip J. Currie, Sergio Alex Kugland de Azevedo, Rafael Delcourt

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsClawPostcraniaCretaceousPaleontologyTaxonGeologyGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dromaeosaurids are poorly known in Europe and their fossil records are mostly postcranial remains. To date, the French faunal records of the family Dromaeosauridae include two taxa: Pyroraptor olympius and Variraptor mechinorum. Nevertheless, their taxonomic validity and phylogenetic relationships as dromaeosaurids are controversial. Here, we report a new record of a dromaeosaurid-like pedal ungual from the ‘Grès à Reptiles’ Formation (Campanian-Maastrichtian) of the Upper Cretaceous of southern France. The French specimen was assigned to cf. Dromaeosauridae on the basis of an extensive qualitative analysis. The new specimen has a strongly curved morphology with a tall, narrow cross-section, which is one of the most characteristic anatomical features of the family. Direct comparison reveals that the claw is similar to that of Pyroraptor olympius (MNHN BO001) from a stratigraphically correlated locality.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistorical BiologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207