MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021214545 · doi:10.1306/eg.03231010006

Comment on the “Hypothesis for the role of toxin-producing algae in Phanerozoic mass extinctions based on evidence from the geologic record and modern environments”

2011· article· en· W2021214545 on OpenAlexaff
Martin R. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Geosciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhanerozoicExtinction eventAlgaeBiologyEcologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Paleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Castle and Rodgers (2009) propose that toxins produced by photosynthetic microbes (“algae”) were factors in the five major Phanerozoic mass extinctions. Although toxins have undoubtedly caused metazoan mortality throughout the Phanerozoic, the data presented by Castle and Rodgers (2009) do not constrain the timing, scale, impact, or longevity of any such events and do not support the suggestion that microbially produced toxins significantly affect extinction rate. To demonstrate a causal relationship between the production of toxins and extinction events, a reliable high-resolution proxy for toxin production is required; such a proxy must indicate an increase in toxin production at, or immediately before, each mass extinction. Castle and Rodgers (2009) propose stromatolite abundance as such a proxy. Unfortunately, its accuracy as a measure of algal abundance is questionable. The increased abundance of certain algae inhibits, rather than promotes, stromatolite growth (Macintyre et al., 1996). Furthermore, the link between toxin production and stromatolitic organisms is only tentatively supported (Burns et …

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0410.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.011

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental GeosciencesSame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207