LOCOMOTION TRACES EMPLACED BY MODERN STALKLESS COMATULID CRINOIDS (FEATHERSTARS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Modern crinoids have the ability to use their arms to crawl along the sea floor and some are capable of swimming short distances. The first and only evidence of crinoid locomotion reported from the rock record was described from the Middle Jurassic of the Cabeço da Ladeira Lagerstätte (Portugal) resulting in description of the ichnotaxon Krinodromos bentou. Although the mechanics of crinoid movement are well documented the morphological ranges of crinoid motility tracks are unknown. This study uses observations of crinoid movement and their effects on sediment using modern comatulid crinoids to propose possible trace fossil morphologies. Using 20 experimental trials supported by photography, video analyses, 3D orthogrammetry and resin casting, the morphological ranges of crinoid motility tracks are included in five distinct morphologies attributed to ambling, crawling, walking, running, and landing/taking-off traces, the latter of which are emplaced before and after swimming. Traces produced by ambling occur as epigenic hook-shaped grooves. Crawling traces comprise closely spaced hook-shaped grooves and ridges preserved in concave and convex epirelief. Walking traces consist of semi-bilaterally symmetrical collections of three or more grooves, and associated ridges, preserved in convex and concave epirelief. Running traces consist of semi-bilaterally symmetrical collections of one to three straight to semi-sinusoidal grooves and associated ridges preserved in concave and convex epirelief. Landing/taking-off traces are mounded features preserved in convex epirelief, with grooves radiating from the center. The five trace types described in this paper provide insight into morphological features that can be associated with modern crinoid activities and used to identify crinoid trace fossils, which are rarely reported, in the rock record.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".