MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034640621 · doi:10.4072/rbp.2006.1.11

Palynology and palaeocommunities of the Paleogene of Argentina

2006· article· en· W2034640621 on OpenAlexaff
Mirta E. Quattrocchio

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Paleontologia · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Air (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleogenePalynologyPaleontologyGeologyGeographyBiologyEcologyCretaceousPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two major paleophytogeoprovinces based on the palynological record at the genus or species level and at the palaeocommunity level are recognized for the Danian of Argentina. The presence of Verrustephanoporites simplex (Ulmaceae) pollen in the north is associated mostly with tropical and subtropical families, while Nothofagidites pollen in the south is mostly associated with temperate families. In the centralnorthwest of Argentina, a subprovince with elater bearing pollen (Mtchedlishvilia) is recognized. Warm and humid climatic conditions are indicated for the Ulmaceae Phytogeoprovince and more temperate conditions for the Phytogeoprovince of Nothofagidites. Tropical to subtropical communities are recognized at the Early Eocene, being later replaced by "mixed forest" with both Neotropical and Antarctic elements, which occupied most of the emerged lands. Great paleogeographic and tectonic events affected Patagonia during the Oligocene and even more clearly at the Early Miocene, when an expansion of open vegetation patches with Chenopodiaceae, Ephedraceae, Asteraceae and Poaceae is recorded. These changes are interpreted as a consequence of strong arid trends related to the final uplift of the Andes, the formation of the West Antarctic ice cap, intensification of the cold Humboldt Current and the South Pacific Subtropical Anticyclone, as well as the beginning of the continental glaciation in Patagonia.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de PaleontologiaSame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207