The lobes and lobopods of Opabinia regalis from the middle Cambrian Burgess Shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite many papers devoted to it, the morphology of the Burgess Shale animal Opabinia regalis continues to excite controversy. In particular, the trunk region remains incompletely understood, leading to several recent attempts to interpret the fossil in radically different ways. New material of Opabinia from the Royal Ontario Museum and the Smithsonian collection, together with the recent description of comparative material of the Burgess Shale anomalocaridid Hurdia, help clarify details of its morphology, in particular with regards to the lateral lobes and setal blades. A recent reconstruction of the trunk lobes is rejected, and further evidence for the presence of trunk limbs is presented. Despite disagreements over its morphology, the phylogenetic placement of Opabinia is now relatively uncontroversial, although various derived aspects of its morphology complicate placing it precisely. □Biramous limb, Burgess Shale, exceptional preservation, Opabinia regalis. © 2011 The Authors, Lethaia © 2011 The Lethaia Foundation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".