MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A new arthropod resting trace and associated suite of trace fossils from the Lower Jurassic of Warwickshire, England

2009· article· en· W2005093766 on OpenAlexaff
Lorna J. O’Brien, Simon J. Braddy, Jonathan D. Radley

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelsonTrace fossilArthropodPaleontologyGeologyAppendageSiltstoneCrustaceanBiologyFaciesZoologyDecapoda

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: A new suite of arthropod trace fossils, attributed to a decapod crustacean, is described from the Lower Jurassic Saltford Shale Member of the Blue Lias Formation of Southam Cement Works Quarry, eastern Warwickshire, England. Solusichnium southamensis igen. et isp. nov. consists of small, isolated, bilaterally symmetrical, suboval hypichnia, comprising three regions. The concave anterior region contains imprints of chelate appendages, antennae and antennules. The elongate middle region contains abdominal appendage imprints that extend laterally, separated by a bifurcated medial imprint. The convex posterior region terminates in a globular V‐shaped telson imprint. The large sample size and range of trace morphologies allows identification of five morphotypes within a taphoseries. S. southamensis is found on the base of siltstone lenses in what is otherwise a dysaerobic laminated mudstone unit, associated with epichnial Rusophycus , and the suite of trace fossils is interpreted as the resting traces (Cubichnia) and escape reactions (Fugichnia) of small decapods that were trapped below a distal storm deposit. The producer of S. southamensis was possibly an Eryon ‐like decapod, similar to those known from the slightly older Wilmcote Limestone Member of southwestern Warwickshire.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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