MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322269436 · doi:10.18435/b5h596

Xiphactinus audax Leidy 1870 from the Puskwaskau Formation (Santonian to Campanian) of northwestern Alberta, Canada and the distribution of Xiphactinus in North America

2016· article· en· W2322269436 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Matthew J. Vavrek, Alison M. Murray, Phil R. Bell

Bibliographic record

VenueVertebrate Anatomy Morphology Palaeontology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCretaceousGeologyPaleontologyRange (aeronautics)Structural basinArcticFish <Actinopterygii>Fossil RecordGeographyOceanographyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Xiphactinus is one of the largest teleost fish known from the Late Cretaceous of North America, and has been found across much of the Western Interior Basin. Despite extensive Late Cretaceous marine deposits occurring in Alberta, there has previously been only two possible records of Xiphactinus from the province, neither of which has been diagnosable to the species level. We describe here a portion of the lower jaws, including teeth, of Xiphactinus audax from northeast of Grande Prairie, Alberta. The fossil has large, thecodont teeth that are circular in cross section and lack any carinae, and are highly variable in their overall size. This fossil is the first diagnostic material of X. audax from Alberta, and extends the range of the species by over a thousand kilometres. During the Late Cretaceous, the area the fossil was found in was near the Arctic Circle, and represents an important datapoint within the poorly known, northern portion of the Western Interior Basin.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.326
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertebrate Anatomy Morphology PalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207