MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114696605 · doi:10.1139/e09-037

Early Pliocene fish remains from Arctic Canada support a pre-Pleistocene dispersal of percids (Teleostei: Perciformes)

2009· article· en· W2114696605 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alison M. Murray, Stephen L. Cumbaa, C. R. Harington, Gerald R. Smith, Natalia Rybczynski

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSanderPleistoceneEarly PleistocenePikeGeologyPerciformesArcticPaleontologyBiological dispersalGenusTeleosteiGeographyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyFisheryOceanographyBiologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percid remains from Pliocene deposits on Ellesmere Island, Arctic Canada, are identified as a species of Sander , similar to the walleye and sauger of North America and the pike–perch of Europe and western Asia. They are named as a new species, Sander teneri . These remains are the most northerly percid elements found to date and suggest the palaeoenvironment was significantly warmer in the Pliocene than it is currently. The fossil remains show the presence in North America of the family Percidae as well as the genus Sander prior to the Pleistocene, indicating a previously proposed Pleistocene immigration from Europe or Asia can be discounted. These fossils contradict an earlier hypothesis that percids, in particular Sander, crossed from Eurasia to North America in the Pleistocene; instead, the fossils show percids were already in the area by the Pliocene.

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)0.001
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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207