The Significance of Pleistocene Psilonichnu. at Willapa Bay, Washington
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Other| April 01, 2000 The Significance of Pleistocene Psilonichnu. at Willapa Bay, Washington MURRAY K. GINGRAS; MURRAY K. GINGRAS 1The Ichnology Research Group, 1-26 E.S.B., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar STEPHEN M. HUBBARD; STEPHEN M. HUBBARD 1The Ichnology Research Group, 1-26 E.S.B., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar S. GEORGE PEMBERTON; S. GEORGE PEMBERTON 1The Ichnology Research Group, 1-26 E.S.B., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar TOM SAUNDERS TOM SAUNDERS 1The Ichnology Research Group, 1-26 E.S.B., University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar PALAIOS (2000) 15 (2): 142–151. https://doi.org/10.1669/0883-1351(2000)015<0142:TSOPPA>2.0.CO;2 Article history accepted: 06 Jan 2000 first online: 03 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation MURRAY K. GINGRAS, STEPHEN M. HUBBARD, S. GEORGE PEMBERTON, TOM SAUNDERS; The Significance of Pleistocene Psilonichnu. at Willapa Bay, Washington. PALAIOS 2000;; 15 (2): 142–151. doi: https://doi.org/10.1669/0883-1351(2000)015<0142:TSOPPA>2.0.CO;2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyPALAIOS Search Advanced Search Abstract Two types of ichnofossils from Pleistocene outcrop at Willapa Bay are described. Because both trace fossils are characterized by an inclined to horizontal tunnel, are unlined, have an exaggerated J-shaped morphology, rarely branch, and have an unconstricted apertural opening, they have been classified as Psilonichnus upsilo. Type A and B.Psilonichnus upsilo. Type A is generally 1 to 3 cm in diameter and is infilled with laminated sediment. In general, P. upsilo. Type A is observed in ancient point-bar deposits. It has an extremely simple architecture that is almost identical to that produced by the crab Hemigrapsus oregonensi. in modern tidal flats at Willapa Bay. Psilonichnus upsilo. Type B normally exceeds 10 cm diameter and is infilled with laminated sediment. The passive infill commonly is deposited in couplets and may be delivered to the burrow network by tide-generated currents. Psilonichnus upsilo. Type B is observed in intertidal flat deposits. The overall morphology of this trace fossil is most similar to burrows generated by large crustaceans such as crabs, stomatopods, and lobsters.The occurrence of these traces leads to four findings: (1) Psilonichnus upsilo. has a more variable architecture than discussed in the literature. The size and angle of the tunnel are variable, and Psilonichnu. may aggrade, forming Teichichnu.-like structures. (2) In the modern bay, burrowing shrimp dominate subtidal, point-bar, and intertidal deposits. The Pleistocene record indicates that burrowing crabs sometimes occupied similar niches in the ancient bay. (3) Laminated, heterolithic burrow fills provide evidence of rhythmic sedimentation. These laminae represent tidal or episodic sedimentation and provide the only evidence of such processes in otherwise muddy deposits. (4) A large burrowing crab that might make P. upsilo. Type B may not be present in the modern bay. However, such a trace maker was present when these Pleistocene deposits accumulated. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.004 |
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".