MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987223720 · doi:10.1139/e01-057

A new bird from the Upper Cretaceous Two Medicine Formation of Montana

2002· article· en· W1987223720 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David J. Varricchio

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousPaleontologyHumerusGeologyExtant taxonWaterfowlBiologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A partial humerus, ulna, and radius compose the type specimen of a new bird, Piksi barbarulna, new genus and species, from the Late Cretaceous (Campanian) Two Medicine Formation of western Montana. This ornithothoracine taxon differs from all other birds in having an enlarged dorsal epicondyle and a reduced ventral condyle on the humerus with corresponding modifications on the articular surface of the ulna. Among modern birds, Piksi is most similar to galliforms, but the paucity of unambiguous characters and its unusual morphology defy placement within any extant "order" and strongly questions any neornithine affinities. Instead, Piksi appears to have a fairly basal position within Ornithothoraces. Several morphologic features of Piksi occur in phylogenetically diverse but morphologically similar birds, such as galliforms, tinamous, and some columbiforms. The new bird comes from an inland, relatively dry paleo-environment. Atypical for a Cretaceous avian record dominated by waterfowl, Piksi appears to represents a heavy-bodied ground bird. Searching of inland depositional environments may yield new and ecologically distinct avian varieties.

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 score0.987
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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