MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415827478 · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2025.09.036

Remote sensing of lichens with drones for detecting dinosaur bones

2025· article· en· W4415827478 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian J. Pickles, Caleb M. Brown, Sean Herridge-Berry, Cameron R. Martin, Melissa Dergousoff, Teri Gilmar, Phil R. Bell, Derek R. Peddle

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicBuilding materials and conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeRoyal Tyrrell Museum
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of ReadingDinosaur Research InstituteAlberta ParksUniversity of Lethbridge
KeywordsLichenAlgaeVertebrateColonisationSymbiosisBiodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in palaeontology and evolutionary biology are often linked to the discovery of new fossils, yet these discoveries are typically serendipitous 1 . Here, we report that lichens can serve as biological indicators of vertebrate fossils in western North America and can be identified using remote sensing. Lichens are symbioses between fungi and algae (and/or cyanobacteria) that play important ecological roles 2 and colonise many substrates, including fossils 3 . Preferential colonisation of dinosaur bones by lichen with vibrant orange pigmentation (Figure 1A,B) has been recognised anecdotally for decades (Darren H. Tanke, personal communication). We found that the spectral reflectance profiles of these lichen pigments and the preferential association between modern lichens and ancient bones can be used to detect dinosaur fossils by remote sensing, for which we propose new spectral indices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueCurrent BiologySame topicBuilding materials and conservationFrench-language works237,207