MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407591285 · doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlae178

Anatomy and revised diagnosis of the embolomere <i>Calligenethlon watsoni</i> from Joggins, Nova Scotia, based on micro-computed tomography

2025· article· en· W4407591285 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabrielle R. Adams, Benjamin K. A. Otoo, Caleb P W Bohus, Logan M Micucci, Hillary C. Maddin

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaBiologyComputed tomographyAnatomyNova (rocket)RadiologyArchaeologyMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Although Calligenethlon watsoni, an enigmatic embolomere from Joggins, Nova Scotia, has been known since 1934, an in-depth description of its anatomy (including CT data) and updated taxonomic diagnosis has yet to be completed. Additionally, subsequently discovered embolomere specimens have been referred to the taxon simply if they display embolomere traits. As a result, Calligenethlon is represented by a collection of specimens united on the basis of largely non-diagnostic traits. Here, the exquisitely preserved specimen identified as Calligenethlon, NSM 994GF1.1, is described in detail using micro-computed tomography. Comparison of this specimen to the holotype supports its referral to Calligenethlon and the anatomical knowledge gained here allows for the generation of a more robust morphological diagnosis of the genus Calligenethlon. We then re-evaluate all other referred specimens to determine which are consistent with their referral to the taxon, and which are inconclusively referred to the taxon. These data are discussed as they provide new insights into the anatomy of Calligenethlon and the diversity of embolomeres at the Joggins’ locality.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207