MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900773030 · doi:10.1002/9781119382508.ch7

The Ediacaran‐Cambrian Transition

2018· other· en· W2900773030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alan J. Kaufman

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical monograph · 2018
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleontologyGeologyBiotaGlacial periodSedimentary rockExtinction eventExcursionTaphonomyPlate tectonicsEarth scienceTectonicsEcologyBiologyBiological dispersal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ediacaran oceans hosted a strange world of exotic soft-bodied forms that were a failed early evolutionary experiment in macroscopic life. These enigmatic organisms appear suddenly in sedimentary rocks as old as 573 Ma above a glacial diamictite in Newfoundland, and, in most successions, a profound and equally puzzling negative carbon cycle anomaly known as the Shuram excursion. The Ediacaran biota died out near the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary (<541 Ma) coincident with a second strong negative δ13C excursion. From Ediacaran ashes, the proliferation of complex feeding traces, soft-bodied arthropod tracks, and mineralized skeletons in the succeeding Fortunian stage led to a diverse landscape of modern phyla by the detonation of the Cambrian explosion around 529 Ma. This chapter provides a review of the profound changes in the carbon, sulfur, and strontium cycles across this critical transition in order to better understand the redox history of the oceans, as well as the tectonic, climatic, and biological events preserved in its sedimentary archive, and further proposes a novel resource-based hypothesis for the rise and fall of the Ediacaran biota.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical monographSame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207