MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2299185555 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2016-0013

Camel fossils from gravel pits near Edmonton and Vauxhall, and a review of the Quaternary camelid record of Alberta

2016· review· en· W2299185555 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christopher N. Jass, Timothy E. Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Alberta Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuaternaryRadiocarbon datingPleistoceneMegafaunaGeologyDeglaciationLast Glacial MaximumArchaeologyPaleontologyGlacial periodHoloceneGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Camelid remains are known from several Quaternary palaeontological localities in Alberta, yet most specimens are undescribed in the literature. Specimens reported here comprise a large sample of the known camelid record from the province and provide further insight into the record of Quaternary megafauna of western Canada. Remains from the Edmonton area include specimens pre- and post-dating the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), whereas remains from the Vauxhall area are post-LGM. A metapodial fragment of a giant camel originally described as Titanotylopus from the Edmonton area is likely from earlier in the Pleistocene or late Pliocene. Camelid remains are not overly abundant in Alberta, but are widely distributed, having been recovered from several sites across the province. A new radiocarbon date of 11 280 ± 40 14C years BP on a radioulna of Camelops cf. C. hesternus represents only the fourth direct age assessment of a Quaternary camelid from Alberta. Radiocarbon data may suggest linkages to patterns of extirpation observed in camelid populations from northern Canada, followed by recolonization following deglaciation.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.267 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and ArchaeologyFrench-language works237,207