MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2724344403 · doi:10.2110/palo.2016.099

PREFERENTIAL ORIENTATION OF SHRIMP-GENERATED <i>DIPLOCRATERION PARALLELUM</i> AND THEIR RELIABILITY AS PALEOCURRENT INDICATORS

2017· article· en· W2724344403 on OpenAlexaff
Shahin E. Dashtgard, R. Bruce Ainsworth, James A. MacEachern

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaios · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleocurrentBurrowGeologyCretaceousPaleontologyShrimpFlow (mathematics)GeometryEcologySedimentary rockClastic rockBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Arthropods from the late Campanian (Late Cretaceous) of the Western Interior Seaway produced U-shaped Diplocraterion parallelum in mudstones along two closely spaced surfaces (10 cm apart), one of which corresponds to a maximum transgressive surface. Diplocraterion parallelum are widely distributed across both surfaces, with substantial variations in burrow orientations. Based on a comparison of paleocurrent indicators to burrow orientations, we demonstrate that D. parallelum are preferentially oriented parallel to the prevailing fair-weather wave propagation direction (wave-forced currents) that acted upon the colonized surfaces. There is an apparent maximum (34% above uniformity) preferential orientation of the burrows, attributed to the fact that wave-forced currents represent only one of several factors controlling shrimp burrowing behaviors. Based on this study, we propose that in the absence of paleocurrent data, Diplocraterion and other U-shaped burrows can be used to resolve flow directions, and that preferential burrow orientations ≥ 2% above uniformity are significant. However, it is noted that it is only possible to resolve 2-way flow directions (trend) from U-shaped burrows, as there is no way to determine vector directions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.237
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaiosSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207