MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518830096 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2016-0042

New fossil Pinaceae from the Early Cretaceous of Mongolia

2016· article· en· W2518830096 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fabiany Herrera, Andrew B. Leslie, Gongle Shi, Patrick Knopf, Niiden Ichinnorov, Masamichi Takahashi, Peter R. Crane, Patrick S. Herendeen

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPinaceaeBractBiologyBotanyCupressaceaeExtant taxonCretaceousNeogeneShootPaleontologyPollenPinus <genus>InflorescenceStructural basinEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exceptionally well-preserved pinaceous leaves and seed cones are abundant in unconsolidated Early Cretaceous lignites in central Mongolia. These fossils include two seed cones, both of which have helically arranged bract–scale complexes with two winged seeds on the adaxial surface. The larger of the two seed cones, described as Picea farjonii sp. nov., is cylindrical to ellipsoidal, and was borne terminally on a stout shoot. The bract is small and tridentate. Leaf bases on the shoots are helically arranged, and attached leaves are linear and flattened. In all of the morphological and anatomical features that are preserved, P. farjonii is very similar to extant Picea. The smaller seed cone, described as Pityostrobus stockeyae sp. nov., shows features of several genera of extant Pinaceae. This cone is ellipsoidal and was borne terminally on a long, slender shoot. The bract is thin and triangular proximally, but the distal portion is thicker, needle-like, and deciduous. Picea farjonii and Pityostrobus stockeyae were abundant in conifer-dominated swamps in Mongolia during the Aptian–Albian and provide further support for the importance of plants related to extant Pinaceae in the vegetation of the Northern Hemisphere at this time.

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 score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207