MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049979496 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2014.7

A reexamination of <i>Yuknessia</i> from the Cambrian of British Columbia and Utah

2015· article· en· W2049979496 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Steven T. LoDuca, Jean‐Bernard Caron, James D. Schiffbauer, Shuhai Xiao, Anthony Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoUniversity of MichiganParks CanadaSmithsonian Institution
KeywordsTrilobitePaleontologyExtant taxonGeologyTaxonMorphology (biology)PennsylvanianSeries (stratigraphy)BiologyEvolutionary biologyStructural basinOrdovician

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To investigate the phylogenetic affinity of Yuknessia simplex Walcott, 1919, scanning electron microscopy was applied to the Burgess Shale (Cambrian Series 3, Stage 5) type material and to new material from the Trilobite Beds (Yoho National Park) and specimens from the Cambrian of Utah. On the basis of fine-scale details observed using this approach, including banding structure interpreted as fusellae, Yuknessia Walcott, 1919 is transferred from the algae, where it resided for nearly a century, to the extant taxon Pterobranchia (Phylum Hemichordata). Considered as such, Yuknessia specimens from the Trilobite Beds and Spence Formation (Utah) are amongst the oldest known colonial pterobranchs. Two morphs regarded herein as two different species are recognized from the Trilobite Beds based on tubarium morphology. Yuknessia simplex has slender erect tubes whereas Yuknessia stephenensis n. sp., which is also known in Utah, has more robust erect tubes. The two paratypes of Y. simplex designated by Walcott (1919) are formally removed from Yuknessia and are reinterpreted respectively as an indeterminate alga and Dalyia racemata Walcott, 1919, a putative red alga.

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 score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207