MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1484814429 · doi:10.1002/gj.2677

Reply to discussion of Jamaican cenozoic ichnology: review and prospectus: (v. 50, p. 364–382)

2015· article· en· W1484814429 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen K. Donovan, Ron K. Pickerill

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleontologyTrace fossilGeologyCenozoicBiostratigraphyPaleogeneIchnologyLithostratigraphyTRACE (psycholinguistics)Benthic zoneCretaceousStructural basinOceanographyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mitchell and Ramsook comment on the lithostratigraphic assignment of Jamaican Cenozoic ichnofossils discussed in Donovan et al. They argue that the Paleogene Richmond Formation should be subdivided to produce a ‘Moore Town formation’ in eastern Jamaica, but the latter remains undefined as a lithostratigraphic unit and no new lithostratigraphic evidence is produced to support their supposition. Further, their use of a flawed table of trace fossil distributions does not support their thesis. The distribution of trace fossils in the White Limestone Group presented by Donovan et al. follows the lithostratigraphic scheme that was current at the time that the research was originally undertaken in the early 2000s. Yet, whatever lithostratigraphic scheme is utilised for the island, it is apparent that the more accurate data is provided by the biostratigraphy of the larger benthic foraminifers. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.008
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0130.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.208 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological JournalSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207