MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618615128 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2016-0233

A late Campanian euselachian assemblage from the Bearpaw Formation of Alberta, Canada: some notable range extensions

2017· article· en· W2618615128 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Todd D. Cook, E. S. Brown, Patricia E. Ralrick, Takuya Konishi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Tyrrell Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAssemblage (archaeology)FaunaBenthic zonePaleontologyRange (aeronautics)Faunal assemblagePelagic zoneOceanographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Herein, we report an euselachian assemblage from the late Campanian Bearpaw Formation recovered from southern Alberta, Canada. This small yet uniquely diverse fauna includes the northernmost occurrences of Paraorthacodus andersoni, Squalus worlandensis, Odontaspis aculeatus, and Archaeotriakis ornatus within the Western Interior Seaway. It also constitutes the first record of P. andersoni, S. worlandensis, and A. ornatus from Canadian deposits. Moreover, we report the stratigraphically youngest record of Cretoxyrhina mantelli. This assemblage is unique in that all the identifiable euselachian species are either pelagic or benthopelagic but not benthic. This is in stark contrast to the batoid-rich euselachian assemblage of the Lethbridge Coal Zone that immediately underlies the Bearpaw Formation in southern Alberta. We attribute this difference to dysoxic bottom waters during the deposition of the formation, rather than to sampling bias.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207