MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327845198 · doi:10.1144/m38.9

Chapter 9 Coral biogeography in the Late Ordovician (Cincinnatian) of Laurentia

2013· article· en· W2327845198 on OpenAlexaff
Robert J. Elias, Graham A. Young, Dong‐Jin Lee, Boo‐Young Bae

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Memoirs · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaurentiaOrdovicianBiogeographyCoralGeologyPaleontologyOceanographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract During the Late Ordovician, Cincinnatian, the epicontinental seas and continental margin of Laurentia provided habitats that were suitable for corals. Biogeographical differentiation occurred within this equatorially placed continent, when corals were introduced to areas that had fundamentally different environments. There were four biogeographical divisions, characterized by distinctive faunas that included some endemic taxa: the Red River–Stony Mountain Province, Richmond Province, Edgewood Province and the less well understood, informal ‘Continental Margin’ Area. In each division, the potential for diversification and the capacity for diversity were determined by factors such as the duration and size of the division, the amount of immigration, the extent of evolution and biogeographical differentiation, faunal responses to changes in sea-level and climate, and the complexity of the ecological structure. The development of multiple biogeographical divisions, each contributing to overall diversity, enhanced the ‘Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event’. During the latest Ordovician mass extinction, there was a reduction of diversity and loss of biogeographical divisions within Laurentia. The divisions were terminated when their characteristic taxa disappeared, in response to major environmental changes associated with glaciation in Gondwana and subsequent global warming.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London MemoirsSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207