MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102472206 · doi:10.3732/ajb.93.2.197

<i>Pinus baileyi</i> (section <i>Pinus</i>, Pinaceae) from the Paleogene of Idaho, USA

2006· article· en· W2102472206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Diane M. Erwin, Howard E. Schorn

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California Museum of Paleontology
KeywordsPinaceaeBiologyPinus <genus>TaxonRange (aeronautics)Botany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pinus baileyi from the Paleogene of Idaho was initially related to the bristlecone pine P. longaeva (subgen. Strobus, sect. Parrya, subsect. Balfourianae) from western North America. Unlike the centromucronate condition in P. longaeva, P. baileyi cones have raised umbos that are excentromucronate, i.e., the mucro positioned in the upper umbo field above the keel. Cone size and scale morphology shows that P. baileyi more closely resembles excentromucronate pines of subsects. Halepenses and Pinus sensu Gernandt et al. (2005, Taxon 54: 29-42), but is most similar to P. resinosa, P. kesiya, and P. massoniana of subsect. Pinus. Morphologically, P. baileyi resembles the fossil species P. princetonensis and P. arnoldii from the Eocene Princeton Chert, British Columbia, Canada. Pinus baileyi extends the western North American range of ovulate cones resembling subsect. Pinus from the middle Eocene of British Columbia, Canada and Washington, USA to the Oligocene of Idaho, USA. Pinus baileyi, and possibly P. princetonensis and P. arnoldii, indicates the presence of early populations of subsect. Pinus-type pines in the western cordillera of North America, raising the possibility that P. resinosa and P. tropicalis may have evolved from this group.

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 score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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