Data from: A unique hybodontiform skeleton provides novel insights into Mesozoic chondrichthyan life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asteracanthus apparently was one of the most common Mesozoic hybodontiform chondrichthyans, as remains traditionally referred to this genus have been reported almost worldwide from Middle Triassic to Late Cretaceous strata so far. Asteracanthus was erected by Louis Agassiz for Late Jurassic fin spines with stellate tubercles. Later, Arthur Smith Woodward synonymized Strophodus, originally introduced by Agassiz for distinctive crushing teeth of Triassic to Cretaceous age, with Asteracanthus based on associated teeth and spines from the English Middle Jurassic. This taxonomic scheme has been accepted for more than 130 years until now, although articulated material has never been found. Here, we present a unique hybodontiform skeleton from the German Late Jurassic, displaying a striking combination of characters: tuberculate dorsal fin spines reminiscent of Asteracanthus and multicuspid teeth that markedly differ from the crushing teeth previously referred to this genus. Using qualitative and quantitative approaches, we compared its fin spines to those that were found in association with Agassiz’s Strophodus teeth, providing evidence that Asteracanthus and Strophodus in fact represent two valid genera distinct from all other hybodontiforms. Morphological features that distinguish fin spines of Strophodus from those of all other hybodontiforms include a straight anterior border and distally distributed posterior denticles. These observations led us to present an emended diagnosis for Asteracanthus. Dentally, Asteracanthus shows strong resemblance to Hybodus, but it otherwise lacks a palatobasal process on the palatoquadrate. Therefore, and in the absence of any reliable phylogenetic framework, we recommend treating Asteracanthus as incertae familiae until hybodontiform interrelationships are resolved.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".