MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Evolution of the <i>Rhynchotrema</i> – <i>Hiscobeccus</i> lineage: implications for the diversification of the Late Ordovician epicontinental brachiopod fauna of Laurentia

2012· article· en· W2087981587 on OpenAlexaff
Akbar Sohrabi, Jisuo Jin

Bibliographic record

VenueLethaia · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaurentiaOrdovicianFaunaDiversification (marketing strategy)Lineage (genetic)PaleontologyGeologyTrilobiteEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multivariate analysis based on nine biometric characters of 171 Late Ordovician rhynchonellide specimens from nine upper Sandbian–upper Katian localities in North America supports the hypothesis that one of the diagnostic taxa of the North American epicontinental brachiopod fauna, Hiscobeccus, evolved from Rhynchotrema, which lived predominantly in peri-cratonic settings. The oldest known Hiscobeccus, H. mackenziensis of early Katian age, exhibits transitional characteristics between Rhynchotrema and Hiscobeccus, and it clusters more closely with Rhynchotrema than with younger species of Hiscobeccus of mid–late Katian (Maysvillian–Richmondian) age. Diversification of the Hiscobeccus lineage in epicontinental seas was characterized by drastic increase in shell size, globosity and lamellosity, especially in palaeoequatorially located inland basins. Such morphological trends are interpreted as adaptation to relatively shallow, muddy substrates, moderate water turbulence, relatively low oxygen content and unstable supply of nutrients in generally overheated epicontinental seas with sluggish circulation.

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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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