Fig. 7 in A new apheliscine "condylarth" mammal from the late Paleocene of Montana and Alberta and the phylogeny of "hyopsodontids"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fig. 7. Comparison of phylogenetically significant dental features in Apheliscidae, Hyopsodus, and other Hyopsodontidae to illustrate the differences between apheliscids and hyopsodontids. A. Litomylus dissentaneus, left m2, USNM 9318 (Torrejonian, Montana, USA). B. Phenacodaptes sabulosus, left m2, YPM:PU 19504 (Tiffanian, Wyoming, USA). C. Aletodon gunnelli, right M2, UM 63307 (Clarkforkian, Wyoming, USA). D. Hyopsodus latidens, left m2, USNM 525587 (Wasatchian, Wyoming, USA). E. Hyopsodus latidens, right M2, USNM 525388 (Wasatchian, Wyoming, USA). F. Choeroclaenus turgidunculus, left m2, USNM 15465 (Puercan, New Mexico, USA). G. Promioclaenus lemuroides, left m2, USNM 407572 (Torrejonian, New Mexico, USA). H. Litaletes disjunctus, right M2, USNM 9324 (Torrejonian, Montana, USA). The left column compares paraconids (asterisk) on left m2 in occlusal (A1, D1, F1) and lingual (A2, D2, F2) views. The D3 represents the oblique anterobuccal view of the tooth figured also in D1 and D2. The paraconid is low and median in apheliscids but tall, lingual, and basally fused with the metaconid in hyopsodontids. The center column compares postentocristids on left m2 in oblique anterobuccal view. The postentocristid is notched between the hypoconulid and entoconid in apheliscids, while it forms a smooth crest between the hypoconulid and entoconid in hyopsodontids. The right column compares the positions of the anterior cingulum (ant. cing.) and posterior cingulum (post. cing.) on right M2 in lingual view. In apheliscids, both cingula arise from the same level on the base of the protocone, while in hyopsodontids, the posterior cingulum arises higher on the protocone than does the anterior cingulum. Scale bars 1 mm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".