MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991932027 · doi:10.1002/gj.1179

Palynological evidence for Pennsylvanian (Late Carboniferous) vegetation change in the Sydney Coalfield, eastern Canada

2009· article· en· W1991932027 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tatyana K. Dimitrova, Erwin L. Zodrow, Christopher J. Cleal, Barry A. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalynologyGeologyPennsylvanianCarboniferousVegetation (pathology)PaleontologyClastic rockPollenOil shalePermianSedimentary rockEcologyStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The palynology of clastic samples from seven stratigraphical levels in the late Moscovian Sydney Mines Formation, exposed along the shore at Bras d'Or, Nova Scotia, has been investigated. Most of the samples were from roof shales of major coals; the one sample that was not yielded a much higher proportion of pollen derived from extra‐basinal vegetation. The four stratigraphically lower roof shale samples yielded essentially similar palynological spectra, with 39 ± 4% lycophytes, 9 ± 4% sphenophylls, 23 ± 4% tree‐ferns, 12 ± 4% other ferns and 5 ± 3% cordaites. The palynology of the upper part of the investigated succession suggests a shift in vegetation towards one favouring more marattialean tree‐ferns, cordaites and conifers, and fewer lycophytes. This correlates with changes in drainage patterns as the alluvial plain migrated seawards and thus changed water tables. No evidence was found to suggest significant climate change at this time. Copyright © 2009 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)0.000
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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological JournalSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207