MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057839912 · doi:10.1139/e05-010

Darriwilian graptolites of the Hamburg succession (Dauphin Formation), Pennsylvania, and their geologic significance

2005· article· en· W2057839912 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
G. Robert Ganis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and environmental studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOrdovicianLaurentiaPaleontologyOrogenyForeland basinBiostratigraphyTerraneEcological successionTrilobiteSedimentary depositional environmentAcritarchStructural basinTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Graptolites from the Dauphin Formation in the allochthonous Hamburg succession of the Appalachians in Pennsylvania, USA, are late Darriwilian (Da) 3 to early Da 4 age (Middle Ordovician); this age range constrains the timing of the latest depositional episode before the terrane was tectonically mobilized. These rocks were emplaced into the Martinsburg foreland basin of Laurentia during the Taconic orogeny in the early Caradoc (Late Ordovician). Nineteen taxa are described defining a narrow biostratigraphic interval. Among the characteristic fauna collected from of the Da 4 Zone are Pterograptus elegans Holm, Cryptograptus schaeferi Lapworth, Hustedograptus teretiusculus (Hisinger) ?, Haddingograptus oliveri (Bouček), Glossograptus hincksii (Hopkinson), Pseudophyllograptus angustifolius s.l. (J. Hall), and Archiclimacograptus cf. riddellensis (Harris). Tetragraptus cf. erectus Mu et al. found with the above suggests a level low in the Da 4 Zone and a limited occurrence of Bergstromograptus crawfordi (Harris) may indicate some strata within the Da 3 Zone. Proposed new forms include Pseudotrigonograptus ? ricardo sp. nov., and at least two reteograptids. Four examples of Kalpinograptus and Kalpinograptus ? may be new.

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 score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicMarine and environmental studiesFrench-language works237,207