MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024719046 · doi:10.11646/phytotaxa.127.1.18

A review of past and recent research on Cretaceous silicoflagellates

2013· review· en· W2024719046 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin McCartney

Bibliographic record

VenuePhytotaxa · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousPaleontologyGeologyTaxonBiostratigraphyArchipelagoPaleoecologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous knowledge of Cretaceous silicoflagellates has come primarily from scattered Maastrichtian or late Campanian localities. Silicoflagellates from the earlier Upper Cretaceous have been observed from the southern shore of the Baltic Sea and eastern slope of the northern Ural Mountains, and Lower Cretaceous from the Weddell Sea near Antarctica are also known. Much of the previous work, including type specimens for genera and species, have been illustrated with few and simple line drawings. Taxonomic distinctions and evolutionary lineages have often been speculative. Recent studies of Santonian and lower Campanian marine sediments from several sites in the northern Canada Arctic Margin and Archipelago substantially increase our knowledge of Cretaceous silicoflagellate morphology, biostratigraphy, and early evolutionary history. This work, which develops from previous diatom studies, provides new information on the enigmatic genera Cornua and Variramus, describes new genera and species, and presents new information on the timing of silicoflagellate evolutionary events. Seven new biostratigraphic zones replace the previously applied single biostratigraphic unit for the Cretaceous. This article reviews recent silicoflagellate discoveries in the context of previous work to provide a current general knowledge of the subject that includes important taxa.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.227 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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