CAMBRIAN CORRELATION BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND CHINA BASED ON TRILOBITE AND CONODONT FAUNAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Division of the Cambrian System into lower, middle and upper series was first suggested by Walcott(1891a,b) and has been followed by all subsequent workers. A stage classification has been proposed only for the Upper Cambrian of North America (Howell and others, 1944), based on the formational succession of the Minnesota Wisconsin region (Lochman Balk, 1971). Recently 4 new series and 6 new stages names for the Cambrian of Laurentia have been established by American and Canadian authors (Ludvigsen and Westrop, 1985; Palmer, 1998). The classical Middle and Upper Cambrian sequence for China is in Shandong, where is the type area for the establishment of the Middle and Upper Cambrian stages of China (Lu and Dong, 1952; Lu, 1962). Because the Lower Cambrian deposits in Shandong is incomplete,stage subdivisions have been proposed with those of eastern Yunnan in the Lower Cambrian (Lu, 1941,1962). In the first synthesis of North American and Chinese Cambrian biostratigraphy (Howell et al. ,1944; Lu, 1962), much of the present biostratigraphic framework on both sides of the Pacific was established. During the last 50 years, many publications concerning Cambrian trilobite faunas, biostratigraphic studies as well as ecological analysis of Cambrian trilobite distribution based on tectonic setting by both American and Chinese palaeontologists, have increased our knowledge and understanding of the Cambrian biostratigraphic correlation between North America and China (Chang and Jell, 1987; Jegorova et al., 1963;Kurtz, 1981; Lochman Balk and Wilson, 1958; Lochman Balk,1970,1974;Lu et al., 1974;Nogami, 1966; Palmer, 1965,1966,1971,1977,1981,1982;Palmer and Halley,1979;Palmer and Peel, 1979; Robison, 1976; Saito, 1933, 1934;Shergold and Nicoll, 1992;Shergold, 1993;Sundberg and McCollum, 1997). Based on these more recent palaeontological studies, it now seems possible to improve Cambrian correlation between China and North America made by different authors since 1937 (Endo, In Endo and Resser, 1937; Howell, 1947; Chang, 1957, 1986; Lu, 1962; Shergold, Laurie and Sun, 1990; Shergold, 1997; Peng, 1992).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".