MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769239687 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2017.123

<i>Magnigondolella</i>, a new conodont genus from the Triassic of North America

2017· article· en· W2769239687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Martyn L. Golding, Michael J. Orchard

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConodontPaleontologyGenusRange (aeronautics)BiodiversityGeologyMesozoicBiostratigraphyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The new conodont genus Magnigondolella is recognized based on specimens recovered from the Anisian (Middle Triassic) of British Columbia in Canada, and Nevada in the USA. This new genus encompasses problematic specimens with high carinas, which have recently been collectively referred to as Neogondolella ex gr. regalis Mosher. Ten species from North America are herein assigned to Magnigondolella n. gen., including the eight new species M . alexanderi , M . cyri , M . julii , M . nebuchadnezzari , M . salomae , M . n. sp. A, M . n. sp. B, and M . n. sp. C, as well as the two existing species M . regalis (Mosher) and M . dilacerata (Golding and Orchard). Other species from the Tethys region are also tentatively assigned to Magnigondolella n. gen. Based on published records, the genus appears to range from the Spathian to the upper Anisian in North America. The recognition of eight new species from the Anisian significantly increases the conodont biodiversity of this period, which has previously been regarded as a time of low diversity. Although some of the species included within Magnigondolella n. sp. have relatively long stratigraphic ranges, many have been identified in both British Columbia and Nevada, and therefore show potential for biostratigraphic correlation on a regional scale.

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 score0.294
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations17
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207