MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determining the absolute abundance of dinoflagellate cysts in recent marine sediments: The Lycopodium marker-grain method put to the test

2009· article· en· W2134169993 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth Neil Mertens, Koen J. F. Verhoeven, Thomas Verleye, Stephen Louwye, Ana Amorim, Sofia Ribeiro, Amr S. Deaf, Ian C. Harding, Stijn De Schepper, Catalina González, Monika Kodrans-Nsiah, Anne de Vernal, Maryse Henry, Taoufik Radi, Karen Dybkjær, Niels E. Poulsen, Susanne Feist‐Burkhardt, Jonah Chitolie, Claus Heilmann‐Clausen, Laurent Londeix, Jean Louis Turon, Fabienne Marret, Jens Matthießen, Francine M.G. McCarthy, Vandana Prasad, Vera Pospelova, Jane E Kyffin Hughes, James B. Riding, André Rochon, Francesca Sangiorgi, Natasja Welters, Natalie Sinclair, Christian Thun, Ali Soliman, Nicolas Van Nieuwenhove, Αnnemiek Vink, Martin D. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Palaeobotany and Palynology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtist diversity and phylogeny
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversity of VictoriaBrock UniversityUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKBritish Geological SurveyVlaams Instituut voor de ZeeBjerknessenteret for klimaforskning, Universitetet i BergenKingston University
KeywordsLycopodiumDinoflagellateRelative species abundanceAbsolute (philosophy)Abundance (ecology)CalibrationChromatographyEnvironmental scienceBotanyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyChemistryGeologyBiologyMathematicsStatisticsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations180
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueReview of Palaeobotany and PalynologySame topicProtist diversity and phylogenyFrench-language works237,207