Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ichniotherium isp. (Fig. 6) MATERIAL EXAMINED. — Two tracks preserved as concave epireliefs and convex hyporeliefs on slabs M486_ 2022.1.4 A and M486_ 2022.1.4 B, respectively. DESCRIPTION The material includes a single pes/manus set (Fig. 6A, B). The tracks are medium sized and plantigrade. The pes track is pentadactyl and as long as wide to wider than long (PL = 5.8 cm, PW = 6.3 cm). The PL/PW ratio is equal to 0.9. On the pes track, digit impressions are only impressed distally, forming a rounded tip (Fig. 6A, B). The manus track is pentadactyl, smaller than pes track and wider than long (ML = 3.8 cm; MW = 5.2 cm; ML/MW = 0.7). Digit impressions increase in length from I to IV. Proximally digits show transverse and thin grooves. The divarication angle of digits I-V is 81°. On the manus track, digit imprints are short, large, straight and end in an enlarged rounded termination. Digits are more impressed distally. The impression of digit IV is the deepest. Both pes and manus tracks show a short and large sole that is distinctly separated from the digit impressions (Fig. 6A, B). REMARKS The presence of: 1) pentadactyl manus and pes tracks showing enlarged digit tips and large soles; 2) pes imprints as long as wide; and 3) manus imprints wider than long, are characteristic of Ichniotherium Pohlig, 1892. This ichnogenus was reported from upper Carboniferous to lower Permian deposits of many localities throughout the world (e.g. Canada, Brink et al. 2012; France, Gand 1987; Germany, Voigt & Ganzelewski 2010; England, Buchwitz & Voigt 2018; Morocco, Lagnaoui et al. 2018; Poland, Voigt et al. 2012; United States, Voigt et al. 2005). In France, Ichniotherium was reported from the Lodève Basin (Gand 1987; Gand & Durand 2006; Mujal & Marchetti 2020), the Rodez Basin (Gand 1987) and the Saint-Affrique Basin (Gand & Haubold 1984). Although Gand (1987) briefly mentioned Ichniotherium at Le Bousquet (based on the private collection of D. Naudin), he did not describe or illustrate the specimens.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.008 |
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".