The Palynology and Micropaleontology of Boundaries: The Geological Society of London Special Publication 230
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A.B. Beaudoin and M.J. Head, eds., 2004, The Geological Society of London, London, 368 p. (Hardcover, £85.00, ∼US $149.20) ISBN: 1-86239-160-2. The Palynology and Micropaleontology of Boundaries examines changes in microfossils that occur across stratigraphic boundaries, although the editors recognize that other kinds of boundaries could be of interest. The title is somewhat unfortunate because, in my view, micropaleontology includes all microscopic fossils, so palynology is a part of micropaleontology. The practice of paleontology is too fragmented for the discipline's own good, so we should be making more of an effort to put the pieces together. This volume, derived in part from a symposium at the Geological Association of Canada in 2002, contains four synthetic papers covering the nature of boundaries and microfossil records across them and 13 papers on specific boundary intervals. These include conodonts across Cambro–Ordovician, Ordovician–Silurian, and Permian boundaries; miospores in the Carboniferous boundary in Britain; forams or ostracodes across Jurassic; Cretaceous, and Paleogene boundaries; dinoflagellates across the Jurassic–Cretaceous, Cretaceous–Tertiary, Paleogene, and Paleogene– Neogene boundaries; pyritized diatoms across the Paleocene–Eocene; and comparison of multiple groups across the Turonian–Coniacian boundary in Europe and North America. While each paper has information for specialists in its group or stratigraphic interval, most readers want to know the context that makes them of interest to a wider audience. There are a number of questions that could be addressed: How can we better define the standards of geologic time we apply around the world? What is the pattern of fossils across a mass-extinction boundary? Is there a pattern of response of fossils to multiple mass-extinction boundaries? What are lateral changes in organisms associated with a stratigraphic boundary in one area? How can we correlate biostratigraphies across great distances? How do changes in lithofacies or sequence stratigraphy associated with a boundary affect the distribution …
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.064 | 0.022 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".