MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385463628 · doi:10.1111/pala.12671

Palaeobiology and taphonomy of the rangeomorph <i>Culmofrons plumosa</i>

2023· article· en· W4385463628 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Giovanni Pasinetti, Duncan McIlroy

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPaleobiologyTaphonomyPaleontologyCladeBody planBiologyPaleoecologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyExtinction eventTree of life (biology)Phylogenetic treeGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The deep marine Ediacaran fossil record of Avalonia is dominated by the Rangeomorpha, a clade characterized by up to four orders of fractal‐like branching. Despite their abundance, morphological diversity and the recent increase in Ediacaran studies, aspects of their palaeobiology, palaeoecology and phylogenetic position in the tree of life are still hotly debated. The clade has traditionally been interpreted as consisting of organisms that lived erect in the water column and tethered to the seafloor, based on the intuitive interpretation of their frondose body plan. However, recent work has challenged this view and instead proposes a reclining mode of life for several rangeomorphs, possibly in symbiosis with chemoautotrophic bacteria. Here, we offer a detailed description of exceptionally preserved specimens of Culmofrons plumosa from the Discovery UNESCO Global Geopark in Newfoundland, Canada. We suggest that Culmofrons plumosa should be reinterpreted as a reclining organism based on taphonomic and morphological evidence. Additionally, reproductive modes and a growth model of the species are here inferred, and they appear to be most consistent with a reclining mode of life, offering a novel palaeobiological reconstruction of the species.

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)0.000
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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207