MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2185959677

Illustration and taxonomic reevaluation of Neogene Foraminifera described from Japan

2009· article· en· W2185959677 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Scott, Yuki Takayanagi, Shiro Hasegawa, T. Saito, Nova Scotia

Bibliographic record

VenuereroDoc Digital Library · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonomy (biology)NeogeneTaxonPaleontologyForaminiferaFocus (optics)GeologyGeographyBiologyZoologyOpticsOceanography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Scanning Light Microscope (SLM) is used to illustrate 145 Neogene foraminiferal taxa described in the Japanese literature over the past 100 years. The SLM permits photography of specimens without coating, in contrast to some scanning electron microscopes, and provides in-focus (no depth-of-field problem) color photomicrographs of each specimen, which is essential to observing detail as would be seen with a dissecting microscope. Some groups for which there is little taxonomic agreement, such as the unilocular forms and some miliolids, are not illustrated. Where the authors' views on the taxonomy diverge, the different opinions are discussed. Three new species are described (by Takayanagi): Eggerella matsunoi, Haplophragmoides hatai, and Haplophragmoides nishikizawensis. The main purpose of this work is to illustrate some common and not-so-common forms that are poorly known in the North American and European literature and whose names are sometimes used incorrectly. This should help authors worldwide compare their species with the Japanese types in order to reconcile regional taxonomic inconsistencies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuereroDoc Digital LibrarySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207