MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172986830 · doi:10.1666/08-047.1

The Corynexochina (Trilobita): a poorly understood suborder

2008· article· en· W2172986830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. B. Whittington

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenusPaleontologyType (biology)Type speciesRange (aeronautics)DorsumZoologyGeographyMorphology (biology)BiologyGeologyEvolutionary biologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trilobites of this suborder from Europe and North America have not been studied in detail, in contrast to the attention given to relationships within the orders Agnostida and Ptychopariina. The basis of the Corynexochina is the type species of Corynexochus from the middle Cambrian of Sweden. The type material redescribed here is only the cranidium, and is inadequate for diagnosis of the genus. A species attributed to this genus occurring in the Cambrian of southern France is represented by entire dorsal exoskeletons and is urgently in need of redescription. Similar material is recorded in northern Spain. Both complete exoskeletons and growth stages of Corynexochina have been described from Cambrian strata in Russia, Australia, Morocco and China, showing the wide geographical range and varied morphology of the Suborder. The type species of two genera from boulders of middle Cambrian age found in Quebec, Canada, are redescribed from exceptionally well preserved, though small, specimens. They appear to represent a distinct group related to some of the Zacanthoididae. Families of Corynexochina are inadequately discriminated one from another, so that a family name can only be used with question. Until this is remedied, diagnosis of a new group is not possible.

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)0.000
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207