MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295792563 · doi:10.54991/jop.2021.17

Yukon to the Yucatan: Habitat partitioning in North American Late Pleistocene ground sloths (Xenarthra, Pilosa)

2021· article· en· W4295792563 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Gregory McDonald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palaeosciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleoecologyPleistoceneEcologyRange (aeronautics)MegafaunaSlothXenarthraBiological dispersalGeographyUrsusTaxonHabitatBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The late Pleistocene mammalian fauna of North America included seven genera of ground sloth, representing four families. This cohort of megaherbivores had an extensive geographic range in North America from the Yukon in Canada to the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico and inhabited a variety of biomes. Within this latitudinal range there are taxa with a distribution limited to temperate latitudes while others have a distribution restricted to tropical latitudes. Some taxa are better documented than others and more is known about their palaeoecology and habitat preferences, while our knowledge of the palaeoecology of taxa more recently discovered remains limited. In order to better understand what aspects of their palaeoecology allowed their dispersal from South America, long–term success in North America and ultimately the underlying causes for their extinction at the end of the Pleistocene more information is needed. A summary overview of the differences in the palaeoecology of the late Pleistocene sloths in North America and their preferred habitats is presented based on different data sources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.811
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PalaeosciencesSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207