MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511999924 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0059

Araucarian leaves and cone scales from the Loreto Formation of Río de Las Minas, Magellan Region, Chile

2016· article· en· W2511999924 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Takeshi Ohsawa, Atsushi Yabe, Toshihiro Yamada, Kazuhiko Uemura, Kazuo Terada, Marcelo Leppe, Luis Felipe Hinojosa, Harufumi Nishida

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsAraucariaBiologyBotanyType localityGenusApex (geometry)Type (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cone scales and leaves of the Araucariaceae are reported from the Loreto Formation in Río de Las Minas, Punta Arenas, Chile. Two types of cone scales including one new species, Araucarites alatisquamosus are recognized. They are similar to Araucaria section Eutacta. Two types of leaves are assigned to Araucaria nathorstii Dusén, and one new type is distinguished in the specimens from the type locality of A. nathorstii. A narrow leaf type is identical to Dusén’s “Blätter der sterilen Zweige (leaves of sterile shoot)” of A. nathorstii, and a broad leaf type is identical to his “Blätter der fertilen Zweige (leaves of fertile shoot)”. Both types show characters of leaves of section Araucaria as suggested by earlier studies. A smaller leaf type differs from the original description of A. nathorstii, and consists of small appressed leaves with the obtuse apex and stomatal orientation that are the characteristic of the section Eutacta. The occurrence of leaves and cone scales similar to section Eutacta suggest the presence of araucarians close to this section in southernmost South America during the Eocene–early Oligocene, and provide evidence for the wide distribution and diversity of genus Araucaria relatives in South America during the Paleogene.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207