A Method for Comparison of Northern Fossil Insect Assemblages
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paleoenvironmental resolving power of late CenozoicColeoptera fossils from arctic and subarctic sites is hindered by the fact that the fossil assemblages often differgreatly in taxonomic diversity and minimum number of individuals represented. In order to compare faunas of different age and from different sites, the fossil insect assemblages must first be normalized. One method of doing this is to group the fossils according to the ecological requirements of the taxa that they represent and then compare assemblages on the basis of the percentage of individual insects in each group. Eight such groups are defined in this paper and then used to compare fossil assemblages from the Yukon Territory, Alaska and eastern Siberia. Such comparisons reveal differences related to local site-of-deposition conditions but they also reflect the character of the regional late Pleistocene beetle fauna. The grouping procedure supports conclusions based on other information, such as taxonomic content, but it masks certain assemblage characteristics that may also be of paleoenvironmental significance. Thus grouping insect fossils as a means of normalizing the dataf or purposes of comparison should not be used in lieu of other analytical approaches.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it