MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2510486018 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0062

<i>Rariglanda jerseyensis</i>, a new ericalean fossil flower from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey

2016· article· en· W2510486018 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Camila Martínez, Thereis Y. S. Choo, Daniella M. Allevato, Kevin C. Nixon, William L. Crepet, Robert Harbert, Charles P. Daghlian

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPaleontological Research Institution
KeywordsBiologyTrichomeBotanyMonophylyTaxonPhylogenetic treeCretaceousLineage (genetic)CladePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new species, Rariglanda jerseyensis, is described from well-preserved fusainized fossil flowers collected from the Late Cretaceous of New Jersey. Phylogenetic analyses and comparisons with extant and extinct taxa place R. jerseyensis within the monophyletic Ericales, sister to Clethraceae. The most distinctive feature of R. jerseyensis is a dense covering of conspicuous multicellular trichomes on the abaxial surface of the calyx. These multicellular trichomes appear to be glandular, and similar trichomes are found in several other, unrelated, Late Cretaceous fossils. In particular, the ericalean fossil Glandulocalyx upatoiensis bears the most similarity to R. jerseyensis, although differences in androecium and trichome characters clearly separate the two taxa. In addition, phylogenetic analyses confirm the position of G. upatoiensis within the Ericales, but place it within the sarracenioid clade, in a polytomy with Actinidiaceae and Roridulaceae. Past ecological studies associating trichomes with defense against herbivores and pathogens, coupled with the prevalence of multicellular trichomes on flowers among different lineages of fossils in the Cretaceous, suggest that glandular trichomes could have been an important adaptation against herbivore feeding during the Cretaceous.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.608
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207