Skeletal and soft tissue completeness of the acanthodian fossil record
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Acanthodians are a poorly understood paraphyletic grade of extinct Palaeozoic fishes. They play an increasingly prominent role in our understanding of vertebrate evolution as part of the chondrichthyan stem‐group even though their evolutionary history is scarce. The limited preservation of their mostly cartilaginous skeleton largely results in a bias towards isolated remains such as fin spines and scales. Here, we quantify the quality of the acanthodian fossil record by using a variation of the Skeletal Completeness Metric (SCM), an approach that calculates how complete the skeletons of individuals are compared to their theoretical complete skeleton. A novel Soft Tissue Completeness Metric (STCM) is introduced to estimate the percentage of soft body tissue preserved as an alternate measurement of completeness. Completeness scores for >1600 specimens comprising >300 taxa obtained from museum collection visits and literature surveys were assembled into a database. Acanthodian completeness peaks in the Lower–Middle Devonian, Pennsylvanian, and earliest Permian. There is no correlation between acanthodian taxonomic richness and completeness. Acanthodians show a significantly lower completeness distribution than many tetrapod groups, but a similarly low distribution to bats. Skeletons deposited in freshwater are significantly more complete than in marine environments where sea level significantly negatively correlates with observed completeness. Our assessment reveals only weak spatial biases influencing the acanthodian fossil record while environmental biases are much higher. This quantified evaluation of acanthodians provides a foundation for further assessments of the likely influence of character absences from morphological datasets on estimates of early chondrichthyan and, therefore, early gnathostome evolution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".