MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early Triassic conodont clusters from South China: revision of the architecture of the 15 element apparatuses of the superfamily Gondolelloidea

2012· article· en· W2123098427 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Goudemand, Michael J. Orchard, Paul Tafforeau, Séverine Urdy, Thomas Brühwiler, Arnaud Brayard, Thomas Galfetti, Hugo Bucher

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeontology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConodontPaleontologySubfamilyGeologyEarly TriassicSUPERFAMILYChinaPosition (finance)PermianBiologyBiostratigraphyGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Several fused clusters of conodont elements of the generaNeospathodusandNovispathoduswere recovered from limestone beds at the Dienerian–Smithian and Smithian–Spathian boundaries, respectively, from several localities in Guangxi province, South China. Conodont clusters are otherwise extremely rare in the Triassic, and these are first described for the Early Triassic. The exceptional specimens partially preserve the relative three‐dimensional position and orientation of ramiform elements and are therefore extremely important for testing hypotheses on the architecture of apparatuses. These specimens partly confirm the previous reconstruction of theNovispathodusapparatus by Orchard. Within apparatuses of members of superfamily Gondolelloidea, elements previously identified as occupying the S1and S2positions instead occupy the S2and S1positions. Similarly, within apparatuses of members of the subfamily Novispathodinae, elements previously referred to S3and S4positions are reinterpreted to have occupied S4and S3positions, respectively.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations72
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207