MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2278120811 · doi:10.4138/atlgeol.2016.001

Redescription of tetrapod trackways from the Mississippian Mabou Group, Lepreau Falls, New Brunswick, Canada

2016· article· en· W2278120811 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Matthew R. Stimson, Randall F. Miller, Spencer G. Lucas, Adrian F. Park, Steven J. Hinds

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Geology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTetrapod (structure)GeologyPaleontologyCarboniferousGroup (periodic table)Trace fossilStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red-bed strata exposed at Lepreau Falls, southern New Brunswick, were originally interpreted as belonging to the Triassic Lepreau Formation. Poorly preserved tetrapod trackways within the strata were previously assigned to two ichnospecies; one to a new Triassic ichnospecies, Isocampe lepreauense Sarjeant and Stringer, and the other to Rhynchosauroides cf. R. franconicus (Heller). Both were attributed to reptiles. Subsequent mapping of the rocks and reassignment of the exposed strata at Lepreau Falls to the Mississippian Mabou Group prompted our re-examination of the trackway fossils. Isocampe lepreauense was described from a specimen block preserving three trackways and the original description was based on erroneous interpretation of extramorphological digit drags. Rhynchosauroides cf. R. franconicus was a tentative assignment in a letter accompanying a cast in the New Brunswick Museum, but was never formally published. We redescribe and re-interpret all the trackways as gait variations produced by temnospondyls, and most closely resemble the Carboniferous ichnotaxon Matthewichnus.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtlantic GeologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207