MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039982198 · doi:10.1666/10-038.1

Northeast Pacific record of the Cretaceous marine gastropod<i>Atira</i>and a review of its paleobiogeography

2010· review· en· W2039982198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard L. Squires

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousPaleontologyGeologyAptianGenusStructural basinTemperate climateEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cretaceous record of the shallow-marine margaritine gastropod genusAtiraStewart, 1927 in the region extending from Vancouver Island, to northern Baja California is studied in detail for the first time. It is represented byA. popenoein. sp. (late Turonian to earliest Campanian),A. ornatissima(Gabb, 1864) (latest Santonian to late Campanian or possibly early Maastrichtian), andA. inornata(Gabb, 1864) (“mid” Maastrichtian), which is the youngest known species ofAtira. Atiraoriginated in the tropical waters of the Tethys Sea in western Europe as early as the Early Cretaceous, possibly during the Hauterivian but was present there by the late Aptian to early Albian. The genus subsequently immigrated to other regions and became adapted to warm-temperate waters. By the late Turonian it had migrated westward to northern California. During the Campanian it reached south Sakhalin and in the earliest Maastrichtian it was present in southwest Japan. AlthoughAtira?nebrascensis(Meek and Hayden, 1856) has been questionably reported from Campanian to “mid” Maastrichtian deposits in the Wyoming area of the Western Interior Basin, this species does not belong in genusAtira.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207