MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W28343018 · doi:10.37570/bgsd-2003-50-04

Diversification patterns in the clitambonitoid brachiopods of the Ordovician of Baltoscandia

2003· article· en· W28343018 on OpenAlexaff
Olev Vinn, David A. T. Harper

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdovicianBalticaExtinction eventOriginationExtinction (optical mineralogy)PaleontologyGeologyTrilobiteDiversification (marketing strategy)FaunaEcosystemEcologyBiologyBiological dispersalPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two intervals of clitambonitoid diversification followed by major extinctions have been recorded in the Ordovician rocks of Baltoscandia, one during the Arenig and a second in the mid Caradoc. The Arenig radiation was characterized by high origination and extinction rates of both genera and species associated with the development of carbonate environments across the region. In addition the migration of numerous stocks of clitambonitoids out of Baltica to a number of other palaeocontinents occurred during this diversity peak during the Arenig, together with the spread of the majority of genera into a range of more local environments. A marked extinction in the Early Llanvirn coincided with shifts in sedimentation patterns whereas the diversity hike in the Mid Caradoc reflects the diversification of clitambonitoid species in both inner and outer shelf environments. The later Caradoc extinction coincided with an extensive eustatic regression event and the major restructuring of the ecosystem and brachiopod fauna. The final extinction of Baltic clitambonitoids in the late Ashgill was gradual and probably reflected an increasing dependence on more restricted niches.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the Geological Society of DenmarkSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207