MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1955727102 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2014-0165

Fishes from the Lower Triassic portion of the Sulphur Mountain Formation in Alberta, Canada: geological context and taxonomic composition

2015· article· en· W1955727102 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew G. Neuman

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Tyrrell Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyFaunaPaleontologyContext (archaeology)ShoreCratonOceanographyEcologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sulphur Mountain Formation in Alberta, Canada, comprises shales, siltstones, and limestones laid down on the continental shelf and shoreline along the western margin of the North American Craton during the Early and Middle Triassic. At least 13 taxa of fossil marine fishes have been found at a number of Triassic localities along the Front Ranges and foothills in Alberta. Common taxa (Boreosomus, Birgeria, Bobasatrania, Australosomus, Saurichthys, parasemionotids, and coelacanths) found at localities in Alberta are similar to those found at the classic Lower and Middle Triassic localities near Wapiti Lake, British Columbia, and in East Greenland, Spitzbergen, Madagascar, and China. The occurrence of Lower Triassic fishes in western Alberta shows that this fauna was widespread, occurring over at least 1000 km of shoreline, and that ecological and environmental factors were similar along the western edge of the Panthalassic Ocean during the Early Triassic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207