MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2461238912 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0079

A review of the plants of the Princeton chert (Eocene, British Columbia, Canada)

2016· review· en· W2461238912 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kathleen B. Pigg, Melanie L. DeVore

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlora (microbiology)TaxonPaleogenePaleontologyPaleobotanyBiogeographyPaleobiologyBiologyAssemblage (archaeology)EcologyPlant evolutionArchaeologyGeographyStructural basinPlant development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Princeton chert is one of the most completely studied permineralized floras of the Paleogene. Remains of over 30 plant taxa have been described in detail, along with a diverse assemblage of fungi that document a variety of ecological interactions with plants. As a flora of the Okanagan Highlands, the Princeton chert plants are an assemblage of higher elevation taxa of the latest early to earliest middle Eocene, with some components similar to those in the related compression floras. However, like the well-known floras of Clarno, Appian Way, the London Clay, and Messel, the Princeton chert provides an additional dimension of internal structure. In the present study, we outline the history of Princeton chert plant research, starting with Boneham and others, and extending into studies by Stockey and her students and colleagues. These studies were undertaken primarily at the University of Alberta, Edmonton. We then re-examine the individual elements of the Princeton chert flora, using the framework of the currently recognized Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG III) phylogeny and in light of recent fossil discoveries. We hope that this update will bring to mind new aspects of the significance of the Princeton chert flora to Paleogene paleobiology, biogeography, and plant evolution.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.178 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207