MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Silicified Upper Ordovician trilobites from Pai‐Khoi, Arctic Russia

2009· article· en· W1974102909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert M. Owens, Richard A. Fortey

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleontologyOrdovicianFaunaGenusTaxonArcticGeologyTrilobiteRange (aeronautics)GeographyBiologyEcologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: A collection of silicified trilobites extracted from samples obtained by F. Nansen from the Upper Ordovician of Khabarovo, Pai Khoi, Russian Arctic is dominated by two new species of the proetide Lasarchopyge, a genus known hitherto only from the Argentine Precordillera. Comparison of Lasarchopyge with Scharyia reveals a range of common characters that support inclusion of both genera in the same family. The rest of the fauna comprises a metagnostid (Trinodus elspethi), an asaphid (Isotelus sp.), two remopleuridids (Remopleurides cf. caelatus and R. sp. nov. A), an aulacopleurid (Harpidella triloba), a lichid and an odontopleurid (Apianurus cf. barbatus), the last two being represented by very fragmentary material. T. elspethi, H. triloba, R. cf. caelatus and A. cf. barbatus are common to or closely resemble taxa from the Edinburg Formation, Virginia. Closely related taxa are present also in the Esbataottine Formation, NW Territories, Canada, and in the Albany Group, Girvan district, Scotland. All of these occurrences are of early Caradoc (Sandbian) age, and most lay at palaeolatitudes of 20°–30° south; all are interpreted as having been deposited on the outer shelf, which is consistent with their distribution.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207