MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2738914162 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2017.25

Reevaluation and taxonomic clarification of<i>Gigantopteridium</i>and<i>Cathaysiopteris</i>of western equatorial Pangea and their biogeographical significance

2017· article· en· W2738914162 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rebecca A. Koll, William A. DiMichele, Steven R. Manchester

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDalhousie UniversityFlorida Museum of Natural HistoryAmerican Philosophical SocietySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsLimitingBiologyGenusEcologyBiogeographyPaleontologyZoologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A reassessment of the taxonomic relationships of North American gigantopterids is presented in light of an examination of large populations of specimens housed in the US National Museum of Natural History. Variations in venation and subtle aspects of leaf shape facilitate refined understanding of the relationships and diversity of the North American gigantopterid species leading to an improved understanding of the taxonomic and biogeographic relationships of this group, which are found most abundantly in western equatorial Pangea and Cathaysia. Current literature suggests that there are eight North American genera, however, this study has revealed a morphological overlap of several previously defined genera, leading to the conclusion that Gigantopteridium encompasses the species previously treated as Cathaysiopteris yochelsonii as well as a new species, Gigantopteridium utebaturianum . The transfer of C . yochelsonii to Gigantopteridium yochelsonii suggests that Cathaysiopteris may represent a genus endemic to Cathaysia, limiting the biogeographical connection between the regions to Zeilleropteris , Gigantopteridium , Euparyphoselis , and Gigantonoclea .

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207