MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977538389 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7214462

Supplementary material from "‘Conga lines’ of Ediacaran fronds: insights into the reproductive biology of early metazoans"

2024· other· en· W6977538389 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropaguleReproductive biologyBenthic zoneColonisationTaxonScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.695
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.7040.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareFrench-language works237,207