MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410647961 · doi:10.1126/science.adu0704

The emergence and demise of giant sloths

2025· article· en· W4410647961 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Boscaini, Daniel Casali, Néstor Toledo, Juan L. Cantalapiedra, M. Susana Bargo, Gerardo De Iuliis, Timothy J. Gaudin, Max C. Langer, Rachel E. Narducci, François Pujos, Eduardo M. Soto, Sergio F. Vizcaı́no, Ignacio M. Soto

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlothArboreal locomotionDemiseCenozoicExtinction (optical mineralogy)Extinction eventExtant taxonHerbivoreBiologyEcologyTraitHomo erectusLineage (genetic)PaleontologyEvolutionary biologyPleistoceneHabitatBiological dispersalDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The emergence of multi-tonne herbivores is a recurrent aspect of the Cenozoic mammalian radiation. Several of these giants have vanished within the past 130,000 years, but the timing and macroevolutionary drivers behind this pattern of rise and collapse remain unclear for some megaherbivore lineages. Using trait modeling that combines total-evidence evolutionary trees and a comprehensive size dataset, we show that sloth body mass evolved with major lifestyle shifts and that most terrestrial lineages reached their largest sizes through slower evolutionary rates compared with extant arboreal forms. Size disparity increased during the late Cenozoic climatic cooling, but paleoclimatic changes do not explain the rapid extinction of ground sloths that started approximately 15,000 years ago. Their abrupt demise suggests human-driven factors in the decline and extinction of ground sloths.

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 score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations14
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207