MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

THE EDIACARA BIOTA: Neoproterozoic Origin of Animals and Their Ecosystems

2005· article· en· W2130220748 on OpenAlexaff
Guy M. Narbonne

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiotaExtinction eventEcologyBenthic zonePaleontologyGeologyBiologyBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

▪ Abstract The Ediacara biota (575–542 Ma) marks the first appearance of large, architecturally complex organisms in Earth history. Present evidence suggests that the Ediacara biota included a mixture of stem- and crown-group radial animals, stem-group bilaterian animals, “failed experiments” in animal evolution, and perhaps representatives of other eukaryotic kingdoms. These soft-bodied organisms were preserved under (or rarely within) event beds of sand or volcanic ash, and four distinct preservational styles (Flinders-, Fermeuse-, Conception-, and Nama-style) profoundly affected the types of organisms and features that could be preserved. Even the earliest Ediacaran communities (575–565 Ma) show vertical and lateral niche subdivision of the sessile, benthic, filter-feeding organisms, which is strikingly like that of Phanerozoic and modern communities. Later biological and ecological innovations include mobility (>555 Ma), calcification (550 Ma), and predation (<549 Ma). The Ediacara biota abruptly disappeared 542 million years ago, probably as a consequence of mass extinction andor biological interactions with the rapidly evolving animals of the Cambrian explosion.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations708
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary SciencesSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207