MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993848493 · doi:10.4138/1039

Note on different kinds of attachments in trigonocarpalean (Medullosales) ovules from the Pennsylvanian Sydney Coalfield, Canada

2004· article· fr· W1993848493 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erwin L. Zodrow

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Geology · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund Canada
FundersCardiff University
KeywordsPennsylvanianGeologyOvulePaleontologyHumanitiesBiologyBotanyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global data base for detached trigonocarpalean (Medullosales) ovules is large, and they are found in the Euramerican and Cathaysian fl oral provinces, from the Pennsylvanian to early Permian Periods. Despite the abundance, little is still known on what parts of the parent plant the ovules were borne, or in what arrangement they were attached. New data are presented for organically paired, suggested triplet, and axially or cauline borne trigonocarpalean ovules from the Sydney Coalfi eld, Nova Scotia. RÉSUMÉ La base de données mondiale des ovules trigonocarpaléens (Medullosales) détachés est imposante; on les trouve dans les provinces fl oristiques euraméricaine et cathaysienne de la période du Pennsylvanien au Permien précoce. Malgré cette abondance, on sait encore peu de choses sur les parties de la plante-mère où sont nés les ovules, ou selon quelle disposition ils étaient fi xés. De nouvelles données sont présentées au sujet d'ovules trigonocarpaléens biologiquement jumelés, présumés triplets et axiaux ou caulinaires du terrain houiller de Sydney, en Nouvelle-Écosse. [Traduit par la rédaction.]

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 score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtlantic GeologySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207