MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2507543923 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0063

Revision of Icacinaceae from the Early Eocene London Clay flora based on X-ray micro-CT

2016· article· en· W2507543923 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gregory W. Stull, Neil F. Adams, Steven R. Manchester, Dan Sykes, Margaret E. Collinson

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPantropicalBiologyFlora (microbiology)TaxonPaleogeneExtant taxonPaleontologyEcologyGenusBotanyZoologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Early Eocene (Ypresian) London Clay Formation contains one of the most important fruit and seed assemblages from the Paleogene, including a large diversity of taxa (>350 spp.) preserved as pyrite permineralizations retaining 3D structure as well as anatomical detail. Despite the importance of the flora for understanding angiosperm biogeographic and evolutionary history, the majority of the fossil material has not been revisited since the original taxonomic treatments by E.M. Reid and M.E.J. Chandler. Given subsequent advances in our understanding of angiosperm phylogeny and fruit morphology, coupled with technological advances in imaging/visualizing fossil material, many of the taxa represented in the flora deserve further study. Here we present a revision of the pantropical family Icacinaceae using X-ray micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) images of 21 species from the flora. Based on the results, four new combinations are made, a new fossil-genus is established for a distinctive species with affinities to the Phytocreneae, and emended diagnoses are provided for eight taxa. Of the seven genera recognized from the flora, only one, Iodes Blume, is extant. This study offers important insights on the biogeographic and evolutionary history of Icacinaceae, which is one of the most abundant and diverse components of the flora from the London Clay Formation.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207