Supplementary material from "‘Conga lines’ of Ediacaran fronds: insights into the reproductive biology of early metazoans"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Late Ediacaran strata from Newfoundland, Canada (~574–560 Ma) document near-census palaeocommunities of some of the earliest metazoans. Such preservation enables reproductive strategies to be inferred from the spatial distribution of populations of fossilised benthic organisms, previously revealing the existence of both propagule and stoloniferous reproductive modes amongst Ediacaran frondose taxa. Here we describe ‘conga lines’: linear arrangements of more than three closely spaced fossil specimens. We calculate probabilistic models of point maps of 13 fossil-bearing bedding surfaces, and show that four surfaces contain conga lines that are not the result of chance alignments. We then test whether these features could result from passive pelagic propagules settling in the lee of an existing frond, using computational fluid dynamics and discrete phase modelling. Under Ediacaran palaeoenvironmental conditions, preferential leeside settlement at the spatial scale of the conga lines is unlikely. We therefore conclude that these features are novel and do not reflect previously described reproductive strategies employed by Ediacaran organisms, suggesting the use of mixed reproductive strategies in the earliest animals. Such strategies enabled Ediacaran frondose taxa to act as reproductive generalists, and may be an important facet of early metazoan evolution.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.840 | 0.372 |
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".