MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392701777 · doi:10.1080/02724634.2024.2311791

A combined approach to identify isolated theropod teeth from the Cenomanian Kem Kem Group of Morocco: cladistic, discriminant, and machine learning analyses

2023· article· en· W4392701777 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Hendrickx, Thomas H. Trapman, Simon Wills, Femke M. Holwerda, Koen Stein, Oliver W. M. Rauhut, Roland R. Melzer, Jeroen VAN Woensel, J.W.F. Reumer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Tyrrell Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladisticsPhylogenetic treeBiologyGroup (periodic table)Phylogenetic nomenclatureEvolutionary biologyZoologyChemistryClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kem Kem Group of Southeastern Morocco, North Africa, is well known for theropod remains, especially isolated teeth. Here, a collection of isolated theropod teeth is assessed for diversity using a combination of linear discriminant, phylogenetic, and machine learning analyses for the first time. The results confirm earlier studies on Kem Kem theropod diversity, with teeth referred to Abelisauridae, Spinosaurinae, and Carcharodontosauridae. A single tooth is ascribed to a non-abelisauroid ceratosaur or a megaraptoran and may represent the enigmatic averostran Deltadromeus. Spinosaurine teeth are clearly differentiated by all three methodologies, whereas abelisaurid and carcharodontosaurid teeth could only be distinguished by the machine learning and phylogenetic analyses. This study shows that a combination of independent methods is most effective at providing strong evidence on theropod dental diversity in a particular assemblage, and that cladistic and machine learning analyses are the most reliable approaches to identify isolated dinosaur teeth. The methodology used here is likely to yield results in other dinosaur assemblages where isolated teeth are more abundant than body fossils.

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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vertebrate PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207