MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103269228 · doi:10.3732/ajb.89.2.352

<i>Ashicaulis woolfei</i> n. sp.: additional evidence for the antiquity of osmundaceous ferns from the Triassic of Antarctica

2002· article· en· W2103269228 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gar W. Rothwell, Edith L. Taylor, Thomas N. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AlbertaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFrondFernBiologyBotanySporangiumGenusXylemPennsylvanianPaleontologySpore

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous small fern trunks and dispersed osmundaceous frond fragments occur within a Middle Triassic silicified peat near Fremouw Peak in the Transantarctic Mountains of Antarctica. These specimens form the basis of a new species of osmundaceous ferns that further helps to characterize the early Mesozoic vegetation of high latitude Gondwana. Ashicaulis woolfei n. sp. consists of small, upright trunks with a persistent armor of frond bases, adventitious roots, and vegetative frond parts. In cross section the trunks are ∼2.5 cm in diameter and include up to 45 frond bases. Stems range from 5 to 8 mm in diameter with a xylem cylinder of 8-9 xylem segments separated by leaf gaps. Phyllotaxy is variable, approaching 2/5 or 3/8, with 10-12 frond traces in the cortex. Stipes have parenchymatous, stipular wings that are usually devoid of sclerenchyma; fronds are pinnate with alternate-subopposite pinnatifid pinnules. Although the absence of fertile pinnules and sporangia precludes assigning the fossils to a living genus, this species demonstrates that ferns with stelar architecture and histology similar to Osmunda subgenus Osmundastrum (Osmundaceae) were present in the Southern Hemisphere by the mid-Triassic.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207