MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144878159 · doi:10.2110/palo.2009.p09-134r

DEAD IN THEIR TRACKS—CAMBRIAN ARTHROPODS AND THEIR TRACES FROM INTERTIDAL SANDSTONES OF QUEBEC AND WISCONSIN

2010· article· en· W2144878159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joseph H. Collette, James W. Hagadorn, Mélanie Lacelle

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaios · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsSafe Engineering Services & Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArthropodIntertidal zoneTrace fossilPaleontologyGeologyCrustaceanGroup (periodic table)EcologyBiologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The large euthycarcinoid arthropod Mictomerus melochevillensis from the middle Cambrian-Furongian Potsdam Group of Quebec occurs as three-dimensional casts at the end of Cruziana- and Didymaulichus-like trace fossils. This association provides a rare opportunity to test functional morphological hypotheses about these animals, it provides a framework for understanding how arthropods can be sand-cast in three dimensions, and it suggests that euthycarcinoids may have burrowed into mud as an antidesiccation strategy. In the coeval Elk Mound Group of Wisconsin, the phyllocarid arthropod Arenosicaris inflata occurs on the same beds as Cruziana-like and Rusophycus traces; together with morphologically similar ropelike traces, they are interpreted as having been produced by phyllocarids. These traces preserve the earliest known ethological evidence of phyllocarid crustaceans, and imply that Cambrian phyllocarids employed antidesiccation and possibly feeding strategies still used by modern intertidal leptostracan phyllocarids.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations51
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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