MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057361600 · doi:10.1080/03115510903522872

Late Cambrian brachiopods from Jingxi, Guangxi Province, South China

2010· article· en· W2057361600 on OpenAlexaff
Renbin Zhan, Jin Jisuo, Rong Jiayu, Xuejian Zhu, Han Nai-ren

Bibliographic record

VenueAlcheringa An Australasian Journal of Palaeontology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsFaunaTrilobiteBenthic zonePaleontologyGenusChinaGeologyEcologyBiologyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The brachiopod fauna of the upper Cambrian (upper Furongian) Guole Formation, northwestern Jingxi County, southwestern Guangxi Province, southern China, comprises six genera and seven species, including one new genus, three new species and two indeterminate species (Obolidae gen. et sp. indet, Acrotretidae gen. et sp. indet., Billingsella guangxiensis, B. costata sp. nov., Guoleella lata gen. et sp. nov., Palaeostrophia jingxiensis, Plectotrophia imparicostata sp. nov.). This is the first systematic description of an upper Cambrian brachiopod fauna composed mainly of calcareous-shelled individuals from China. Brachiopod and trilobite faunal analyses suggest that this fauna has a prominent North American (Laurentian) affinity. It is notably different from the coeval, lingulate-dominated brachiopod fauna of South China, particularly of the Yangtze Platform, but shares some similarity with those of the North China Platform. Preliminary analysis reveals that this brachiopod fauna, named the Billingsella-Palaeostrophia Fauna, lived in a nearshore, shallow water benthic regime with a calcareous muddy substrate.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations19
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcheringa An Australasian Journal of PalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207