MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006207234 · doi:10.1080/00173130701763142

Upper Cretaceous pollen flora from the Vilui Basin, Siberia: Circumpolar and endemic<i>Aquilapollenites</i>,<i>Manicorpus</i>, and<i>Azonia</i>species

2007· article· en· W2006207234 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christa‐Charlotte Hofmann, Reinhard Zetter

Bibliographic record

VenueGrana · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversität Wien
KeywordsCretaceousTaxonPollenStructural basinFlora (microbiology)Circumpolar starPaleontologyEcologyGeographyGeologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A detailed LM and SEM examination of the Upper Cretaceous Timerdyakh Formation microflora from the Vilui Basin yielded 13 Aquilapollenites, two Manicorpus, and three Azonia species. Comparisons with existing taxa from the Russian Federation and North America are impeded by the fact that many previously described forms were investigated using LM only, while SEM was very rarely used. Consequently, some of the pollen types reported in this study could not be ascribed to any previously documented taxa and have been described as nine new species. Further one previously described variety has been renamed. Except for two Azonia species and four Aquilapollenites species that also occur in Alaska, Canada and the Rocky Mountains in USA, the remaining taxa described here are restricted to the Late Cretaceous Khatanga‐Lena‐Subprovince. The several species unique to the Vilui Basin might indicate separate evolutionary paths for the genera Aquilapollenites and Manicorpus in North America and both northern and southern Asia during the Upper Maastrichtian.

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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations21
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGranaSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207