MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187088137

ARCHOSAUR FOOTPRINTS – POTENTIAL FOR BIOCHRONOLOGY OF TRIASSIC CONTINENTAL SEQUENCES

2009· article· en· W2187088137 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hendrik Klein, Hartmut Haubold

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPaleontologyBiochronologyEarly TriassicGroup (periodic table)HorizonAssemblage (archaeology)Tetrapod (structure)FootprintTaxonPlateau (mathematics)BiostratigraphyStructural basinPermian
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract—Historically, footprint-bearing localities in eastern and western North America and southern Thuringia and northern Bavaria have played pivotal roles in Triassic archosaur footprint research. In a nearly complete sequence of formations and footprint-horizons in the Moenkopi Group (U.S.A.), Newark Supergroup (U.S.A. and Canada), and Buntsandstein, Muschelkalk, and Keuper groups (Olenekian to Norian-Rhaetian) of central Europe, the principal morphs of archosaur footprints are represented by Rotodactylus, Synaptichnium, Isochirotherium, Brachychirotherium, Chirotherium, Sphingopus, Parachirotherium, Atreipus, and Grallator. Additionally, the temporal and, in principal, the evolutionary “root ” is documented by Protochirotherium from the early Olenekian of Hessen. Of utmost significance is the evolutionary succession from Chirotherium to Grallator. Therein, the development of two key features seen in the origin and early evolution of dinosaurs – tridactyl foot-morphology and the bipedal gait – is documented between the Olenekian and Norian. The strati-graphic distribution of these forms and their potential for biochronology yields a biochronological sequence we sketch out as follows: For the Triassic we discriminate six successive biochrons (I-VI). Each biochron is marked by

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations42
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207