A possible home for a bizarre Carboniferous animal: is <i>Typhloesus</i> a pelagic gastropod?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By contrast to many previously enigmatic Palaeozoic fossils, the Carboniferous metazoan Typhloesus has defied phylogenetic placement. Here, we document new features, including possible phosphatized muscle tissues and a hitherto unrecognized feeding apparatus with two sets of ca 20 spinose teeth whose closest similarities appear to lie with the molluscan radula. The ribbon-like structure, located well behind the mouth area and deep into the anterior part of the body, is interpreted as being in an inverted proboscis configuration. Gut contents, mostly conodonts, in the midgut area demonstrate that Typhloesus was an active predator. This animal was capable of propelling itself in the water column using its flexible body and a prominent posterior fin. The affinity of Typhloesus as a pelagic mollusc remains problematic but may lie more closely with the gastropods. Heteropod gastropods share with Typhloesus an active predatory lifestyle and have a comparable general body organization, albeit they possess characteristic aragonitic shells and their origins in the Jurassic post-date Typhloesus . Typhloesus may represent an independent radiation of Mid-Palaeozoic pelagic gastropods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".