MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588452116 · doi:10.4138/atlgeol.2016.011

Silurian crinoids of the New Brunswick Museum, Saint John, Canada

2016· article· en· W2588452116 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Stephen K. Donovan, Randall F. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueAtlantic Geology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWashington State University
KeywordsCrinoidGeologyPaleontologyOutcropLagerstätteOrdovicianNova scotiaOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The New Brunswick Museum’s collection of Silurian crinoids from eastern Canada is small, and includes specimens from New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia. Material considered herein is, with one exception, from New Brunswick. Included are: the cladid Syndetocrinus dartae (Upper Silurian of Quebec); the camerates Scyphocrinites sp. (Pridoli or Lochkovian) and camerate crinoid arms gen. et sp. indet. (Lower Silurian); columnal morphotaxa Floricrinus (col.) sp. (Ludlow or Pridoli) and Lanxocolumnus (col.) sp. cf. L. chaleurensis Donovan and Keighley (probably Llandovery, Telychian); distal dendritic radicular attachments (Ludlow or Pridoli); and disarticulated brachials (Ludlow or Pridoli). ἀe fossil record of crinoids from the Silurian of New Brunswick appears depauperate, but this most likely reḀects the poor preservation of the specimens (commonly disarticulated and moldic) and the lack of interest shown by collectors. ἀe only remedy for this problem would be either discovery of a crinoid Lagerstätte, which would be attractive to collectors, or a focused campaign of collecting of disarticulated material from multiple outcrops.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.419

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1250.026

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.172 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtlantic GeologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207