MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161531257 · doi:10.2110/palo.2011.s06

SUSPENDING THE RULES: UNRAVELING THE ICHNOLOGICAL SIGNATURE OF THE LOWER TRIASSIC POST-EXTINCTION RECOVERY INTERVAL

2011· article· en· W2161531257 on OpenAlexaff
John‐Paul Zonneveld

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaios · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtinction eventBiotaBiogeochemical cyclePaleontologyGeologyPaleozoicInvertebrateExtinction (optical mineralogy)MesozoicEarly TriassicPermianEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The biotic crisis that heralded the end of the Paleozoic era and simultaneously ushered in the Mesozoic era occurred during an interval of profound environmental change, including strongly increased levels of greenhouse gases (Payne et al., 2004; Kump et al., 2005; Luo et al., 2011), and a sharp decline in the proportion of dissolved oxygen in the world's oceans (Isozaki, 1994, 1997; Grice et al., 2005; Berner et al., 2007). Numerous geochemical and biogeochemical methodologies have documented the changing chemistry of the world's oceans through the Permian-Triassic boundary interval (e.g., Musashi et al., 2001; Rampino and Caldeira, 2005; Grice et al., 2005; Ward and Berner, 2007; Luo et al., 2011). Furthermore, these techniques have illustrated that dissolved oxygen levels and oceanic and atmospheric chemistry fluctuated wildly during the several million years after the initial crisis (Payne et al., 2004; Rampino and Caldeira, 2005; Kakuwa, 2008; Meyer et al., 2008). Prolonged adverse environmental chemistry undoubtedly contributed strongly to the delayed biotic recovery, a delay that lasted the extent of the Early Triassic (Hallam, 1991; Payne et al., 2004; Erwin, 2007; Meyer et al., 2011). Although geochemical studies provide crucial evidence regarding oceanic toxicity, they cannot provide information on biotic responses to fluctuating conditions nor can this line of investigation provide details on the nature of biotic recovery once environmental conditions regained stability. For this, direct observation of fossil evidence is essential. Studies of lowermost Triassic biota have focused primarily on skeletonized invertebrate and vertebrate taxa (i.e., Schubert and Bottjer, 1995; Jin et al., 2000; Chen et al., 2006; Twitchett, 2006; Zonneveld et al., 2007, and references therein). Comparatively few papers have focused on ichnological aspects of the Permian-Triassic extinction and recovery …

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 score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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