The planktonic foraminifera of the Jurassic. Part II: Stratigraphy, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The stratigraphy, palaeoecology and palaeobiogeography are outlined for two genera and ten species of Jurassic planktonic foraminifera described in Gradstein et al. (Swiss J Palaeontol 2017. doi: 10.1007/s13358-017-0131-z ). The two genera are Globuligerina and Conoglobigerina. Globuligerina probably appeared in late Toarcian (late Early Jurassic) and Conoglobigerina first occurred in Middle Oxfordian (early Late Jurassic). Within the two genera ten species are defined, including from older to younger: Globuligerina dagestanica (Morozova), G. avariformis (Kasimova), G. balakhmatovae (Morozova), G. oxfordiana (Grigelis), G. bathoniana (Pazdrowa), G. jurassica (Hofman), G. oxfordiana (Grigelis) calloviensis Kuznetsova emended, G. tojeiraensis Gradstein, Conoglobigerina helvetojurassica (Haeusler), C. grigelisi Gradstein and C. gulekhensis (Gorbachik and Poroshina). Globuligerina balakhmatovae, G. oxfordiana and G. bathoniana are longer ranging, although there are subtle evolutionary trends in these taxa that may refine stratigraphic usage. Other taxa have shorter stratigraphic ranges. Using stratigraphic trends, test morphology and wall texture changes, the species are tentatively assembled in four evolutionary groups, termed A–D, and in six zones from Late Toarcian through Tithonian. The greater species diversity and possibly also specimen abundance took place in the Kimmeridgian, a time of high global sea level and greenhouse palaeoclimatic conditions. Jurassic planktonic foraminifera preferred marine continental margin conditions instead of the distal open ocean and spread from offshore Eastern Canada to offshore Western Australia along the margins of the Tethys Ocean. The group did not venture into austral or boreal realms, likely reasons why migration probably failed to the west coasts of South and North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".