MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005134185 · doi:10.1086/314227

<i>Chaneya</i>, a New Genus of Winged Fruit from the Tertiary of North America and Eastern Asia

2000· article· en· W2005134185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yu‐Fei Wang, Steven R. Manchester

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Plant Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAcademia Sinica
KeywordsBiologyGenusCalyxPerianthBotanyGynoeciumExtant taxonAnacardiaceaeChinaPollenStamenArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new genus is recognized on the basis of wind-dispersed fruits from the Eocene of western North America and Miocene of eastern Asia. The fruits consist of an accrescent hypogynous calyx of five obovate sepals and one or more globose fruit bodies. Although the fossils were formerly placed in the extant genera Porana (Convolvulaceae) and Astronium (Anacardiaceae), our investigation of numerous specimens from several floras in the western United States (e.g., Florissant, Green River, Clarno) and Canada (Whipsaw Creek, British Columbia) and the Yilan and Shanwang floras of China reveals unique characters that indicate that the fossils are a distinct genus, which we name Chaneya. Unlike Porana and Astronium, the fossil calyces have stomata that are longitudinally aligned, and early stages of fruit development show a gynoecium of five apocarpous carpels, of which only one or two usually enlarge at maturity. Precise systematic placement of the fossil genus is uncertain, but similarities to the extant Picrasma of the Simaroubaceae are suggestive of possible affinities. Two species are recognized: Chaneya tenuis (Lesq.) comb. nov., from the Eocene of western North America and northeastern China, and Chaneya kokangensis (Endo) comb. nov., from the Miocene of eastern Asia.

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 score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations37
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207