MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152521883 · doi:10.1144/0016-76492006-189

Palaeoenvironments and palaeoecology of the Early Pennsylvanian Lancaster Formation (‘Fern Ledges’) of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada

2007· article· en· W2152521883 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard J. Falcon‐Lang, Randall F. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPennsylvanianPaleoecologyGeologySAINTPaleontologyFernArchaeologyStructural basinArtGeographyArt historyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pennsylvanian Lancaster Formation (‘Fern Ledges’) of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada contains a world-famous fossil biota. Largely unstudied since the works of Hartt, Dawson, Matthew, and Stopes in the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth century, we present new data concerning biostratigraphy, taxonomy, palaeoenvironments, and palaeoecology. Megafloral assemblages suggest a mid- to late Langsettian age for the succession, making it approximately coeval with the classic Joggins Formation of nearby Nova Scotia. Facies analysis suggests deposition on a tectonically influenced coastal plain whose braided channels drained into a shallow brackish gulf. Most of the historical fossil collections are derived from flooding surfaces formed by abrupt subsidence events along the coastline. Three communities are recognized. Phoronids, crustaceans, and xiphosurans lived in brackish coastal waters. A lowland community of gastropods, insects, arachnids, and myriapods inhabited coastal forests. Coastal vegetation was dominated by shrubby cordaitaleans and pteridosperms whereas ferns, sphenopsids, and lycopsids were rare. An upland or dryland community, discernible from allochthonous assemblages, comprised forests of giant cordaitaleans, archaic pteridosperms, and plants of uncertain affinity.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.175 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations34
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological SocietySame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207