MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2143095943 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2014-0166

Middle Cenomanian (Late Cretaceous) molluscs of the Shaftesbury Formation, Birch Mountains, northeastern Alberta, Canada

2015· article· en· W2143095943 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa L. Bohach, Emily K. Frampton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsStantec (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCenomanianFaunaGeologyCretaceousPaleontologyOil shaleInvertebrateEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Historical Resources Impact Assessment and Mitigation studies have documented a new middle Cenomanian invertebrate fauna from the Shaftesbury Formation in the Birch Mountains, northwest of Fort McMurray, in northeastern Alberta, Canada. Although older portions (Albian) of the Shaftesbury Formation in Alberta and British Columbia have yielded invertebrate fossils, this is the first fauna of middle Cenomanian age known for the unit. The fauna includes the ammonites Acanthoceras wyomingense and Borissjakoceras orbiculatum, the inoceramid bivalves Inoceramus dunveganensis and Inoceramus prefragilis stephensoni, and the gastropod Pirsila tensa. The occurrence of the late middle Cenomanian zonal fossil A. wyomingense allows correlation between the middle “Fish Scales Formation” of the Shaftesbury Formation and the lower part of the Labiche Formation of Alberta, and with five units farther to the south in the United States, namely the Greenhorn Limestone, Lincoln Formation, and Graneros Shale of Kansas, the Frontier Formation of Wyoming, and the Belle Fourche Shale of Montana.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→