MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068776181 · doi:10.1139/b05-033

A fossilized aroid infructescence, <i>Albertarum pueri</i> gen.nov. et sp.nov., of Late Cretaceous (Late Campanian) age from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation of southern Alberta, Canada

2005· article· en· W2068776181 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Josef Bogner, Georgia L. Hoffman, Kevin R. Aulenback

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Botany · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousCanyonBiologyPaleontologyGeologyGenusBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fossilized aroid infructescence has been recovered from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation in southern Alberta, Canada. Its stratigraphic position places it near the end of the Campanian Stage of the Late Cretaceous Epoch, at an absolute age of approximately 72 million years before present. It is one of the few Cretaceous aroid fossils known at present, and it represents a new genus of Araceae, here named Albertarum. The infructescence is fertile to the apex, and the flowers must have been bisexual. Flowers bear remains of a long, attenuated style, surrounded by a perigone of six tepals. A fracture reveals ellipsoid seeds with a thick, ribbed testa and traces of a raphe, arranged in groups of three. The gynoecium was probably trilocular with one ovule per locule, and ovules were anatropous, probably with apical–parietal or axile placentation. Bisexual, perigoniate flowers occur in subfamilies Gymnostachydoideae, Orontioideae, Pothoideae, Monsteroideae, and Lasioideae, no genera of which have ribbed seeds, but the infructescence and stylar region of Albertarum resemble those of extant Symplocarpus (Orontioideae). The Horseshoe Canyon Formation was deposited in a delta plain setting, and like Symplocarpus, Albertarum probably grew in a wetland environment.Key words: fossil, Araceae, Symplocarpus, Albertarum, Limnobiophyllum, Mayoa.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207