MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2117347727 · doi:10.1144/jm.26.1.41

The Pennsylvanian conodont genus <i>Gondolella</i> Stauffer & Plummer, 1932: reinterpretation of the original type specimens and concepts

2007· article· en· W2117347727 on OpenAlexaff
G. K. Merrill, Peter H. von Bitter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Micropalaeontology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicChemical and Environmental Engineering Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario MuseumUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Texas at Austin
KeywordsGenusType (biology)BiologyType speciesReinterpretationSynonym (taxonomy)ConodontZoologyBotanyPaleontologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. In order to ensure stability of nomenclature among species of Gondolella, lectotypes are selected from among the cotypes (syntypes in modern usage) proposed by Stauffer & Plummer (1932) for species that it is concluded were parts of the apparatuses of two species of that genus. It is recognized that many of their specimens actually represent growth stages of individual species, and many of the names used by Stauffer & Plummer are placed in synonymy. Interpreted synonyms include not only gondolelli-form P1 elements, but other parts of the apparatus, especially P2 elements assigned to Euprioniodina by Stauffer & Plummer. Thus, Gondolella bella has synonyms as P1 elements: G. curvata, G. magna, G. minuta, probably G. sp. A, S1 element Euprioniodina coronata and P2 elements: E. exserta, E. eximia and E. intertexta. In a similar manner, the type species of the genus, Gondolella elegantula, has synonyms G. insolita, G. lanceolata (P1 elements), and probably Euprioniodina sp. B (P2 element?).

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

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 studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations5
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MicropalaeontologySame topicChemical and Environmental Engineering ResearchFrench-language works237,207