Cretomanta Case, Tokaryk & Baird 1990
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GENUS † CRETOMANTA CASE, TOKARYK & BAIRD, 1990 Included species: † Cretomanta canadensis Case et al., 1990. Occurrences: The genus occurs from the early Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian) of Canada and North America (Cappetta & Case, 1999; Case et al., 1990; Cicimurri, 2001; Shimada et al., 2006; Underwood & Cumbaa, 2010) to the Maastrichtian of Morocco (Noubhani & Cappetta, 1997). Remarks: The monospecific genus † Cretomanta Case et al., 1990 is only known by isolated teeth with a ‘peg-like’ morphology. There is no individualized labial face on the crown; the cusp is medially compressed, the enameloid is smooth except on the rounded labial face that presents faint longitudinal scratches (Underwood & Cumbaa, 2010); the root is anaulacorhize with numerous nutritive foramina as observable in recent Manta. Some teeth show a bifid cuspidate crown, as observed in the dentition of some living mobulids. Case et al. (1990) originally attributed this taxon to a microphageous batoid close to the Recent Manta, considering the global similarity between tooth shapes of both taxa. However, this tooth morphology is regarded as possibly convergent with Manta as observed in other enigmatic Cretaceous batoids such as Duwibatis (Cappetta, 1991), and has also led some authors to consider Cretomanta as a planktivorous lamniform (Noubhani & Cappetta, 1997; Cappetta, 2006) or with uncertain familial affinities amongst batoids (Underwood & Cumbaa, 2010).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".