MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

REASSESSMENT OF THE GENUS <i>LEANCHOILIA</i> (ARTHROPODA, ARACHNOMORPHA) FROM THE MIDDLE CAMBRIAN BURGESS SHALE, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

2007· article· en· W2045780248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diego C. García‐Bellido, Desmond Collins

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAppendagePaleontologyGenusDorsumType speciesGeologyAnatomyShieldBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The collection, since 1975, of over 1500 specimens of Leanchoilia Walcott by the Royal Ontario Museum has prompted reassessment of the genus and its species from the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale. Among new characters in Leanchoilia superlata, the type species, are the presence of two pairs of eyes, a dorsal double carina bracketing the axis of the body segments, segmentation of the gill branch of the appendages, and serration along the body edges from the posterior third of the cephalic shield to the last body segment. Leanchoilia persephone Simonetta, previously synonymized with L. superlata, is also well represented in the Burgess Shale, and is re‐established as a valid species, owing to conspicuous differences from the type species. These are the absence of the diagnostic up‐curving snout of the cephalic shield, the absence of carina, the shorter ‘great appendages’, the smooth edges of the body, and its overall shape in dorsal aspect. Leanchoilia superlata and L. persephone may be sexual dimorphs of each other. The ROM collections extend considerably the geographical distribution and stratigraphic range of Leanchoilia in western Canada.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations44
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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