MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2720361926 · doi:10.17491/jgsi/2004/630509

FIRST REPORT OF EARLY PROTEROZOIC MICROFOSSILS FROM THE BIJAWAR GROUP OF ROCKS IN HARDA DISTRICT, MADHYA PRADESH

2004· article· en· W2720361926 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ajit Kumar Pal, Mukteshwar Nath Mishra, Kishor Kumar Chhatri

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society of India · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProterozoicGeologyGroup (periodic table)GeochemistryPaleontologyChemistryTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the course of microscopic examination of the recrystallised quartz arenites (locally named chert breccia) from the Bijawar rocks in Harda district, M.P., a number of organic bodies, mainly filaments and solitary spheroids and polygonal bodies, were detected by the authors early in 1994. Thin sections of these rocks were re-examined and the presence of microfossils in the above rocks were confirmed. Remnants of filamentous cyanobacteria belonging to the genera Gunflintia, Archaeorestis, and solitary spherical and polygonal bodies including Eosphaera, Huroniospora and some new forms were noted in the thin sections of these rocks. The Gunflintia-Huroniospora- Archaeorestis assemblage is known from the Gunflint chert of Ontario, Canada, from Early Proterozoic horizons, and the equivalents are known from the Franceville Group of Gabon, S. Africa and in the other parts of the world. The finding of these forms in the Bijawar rocks helps in assigning the age of these horizons as Lower Proterozoic (commonly known as belonging to Lower to Middle Proterozoic).

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.215
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological Society of IndiaSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207