Interpreting fossilized nervous tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paleoneuranatomy is an emerging subfield of paleontological research with great potential for the study of evolution. However, the interpretation of fossilized nervous tissues is a difficult task and presently lacks a rigorous methodology. We critically review here cases of neural tissue preservation reported in Cambrian arthropods, following a set of fundamental paleontological criteria for their recognition. These criteria are based on a variety of taphonomic parameters and account for morphoanatomical complexity. Application of these criteria shows that firm evidence for fossilized nervous tissues is less abundant and detailed than previously reported, and we synthesize here evidence that has stronger support. We argue that the vascular system, and in particular its lacunae, may be central to the understanding of many of the fossilized peri-intestinal features known across Cambrian arthropods. In conclusion, our results suggest the need for caution in the interpretation of evidence for fossilized neural tissue, which will increase the accuracy of evolutionary scenarios. Also see the video abstract here: https://youtu.be/2_JlQepRTb0.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".