MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904693284 · doi:10.1080/01916122.2018.1465730

Distribution and (palaeo)ecological affinities of the main <i>Spiniferites</i> taxa in the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere

2018· article· en· W2904693284 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne de Vernal, Frédérique Eynaud, Maryse Henry, Audrey Limoges, Laurent Londeix, Jens Matthießen, Fabienne Marret, Vera Pospelova, Taoufik Radi, André Rochon, Nicolas Van Nieuwenhove, Sébastien Zaragosi

Bibliographic record

VenuePalynology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeology and Paleoclimatology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiUniversity of VictoriaUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsDinoflagellateBiologyZostera marinaEcologyHabitatSeagrass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In marine sediments of late Cenozoic age, Spiniferites is a very common genus of dinoflagellate cysts (dinocysts). Despite some taxonomical ambiguities due to large range of morphological variations within given species and convergent morphologies between different species, the establishment of an operational taxonomy permitted to develop a standardized modern database of dinocysts for the mid-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. In the database that includes 1490 surface sediment samples, Spiniferites mirabilis-hyperacanthus, Spiniferites ramosus and Spiniferites elongatus were&#13;\ncounted in addition to Spiniferites belerius, Spiniferites bentorii, Spiniferites bulloideus, Spiniferites delicatus, Spiniferites lazus and Spiniferites membranaceus. Among these taxa, Spiniferites mirabilis-hyperacanthus, Spiniferites ramosus, and Spiniferites elongatus are easy to identify and are particularly common. Spiniferites bentorii and Spiniferites delicatus also are morphologically distinct and occur in relatively high percentages in many samples. Spiniferites lazus and Spiniferites membranaceus also bear distinctive features, but occur only in a few samples. The identification of other taxa (Spiniferites belerius, Spiniferites bulloideus, notably) may be equivocal and their reported distribution has to be used with caution. The spatial distribution of Spiniferites species, with emphasis on the five most common taxa, is documented here with reference to hydrography (salinity and temperature in winter and summer, sea ice cover), primary productivity and geographical setting (bathymetry, distance to the coastline). The results demonstrate distinct ecological affinities for Spiniferites elongatus, which has an Arctic-subarctic&#13;\ndistribution and appears abundant in low productivity environments characterized by winter sea ice and large temperature contrast between winter and summer. Spiniferites mirabilis-hyperacanthus, which occurs in warm temperate water sites, is more abundant in high salinity environments. It shares its environmental domain with Spiniferites bentorii, which appears to have a narrower distribution towards the warm and high salinity end of the Spiniferites mirabilis-hyperacanthus distribution. In contrast, Spiniferites delicatus, which occurs in warm-temperate to tropical environments, shows preference for relatively low salinity and low seasonal contrasts of temperature. Spiniferites ramosus exhibits a particularly wide distribution that overlaps both cold and warm Spiniferites taxa. Its cosmopolitan occurrence and its long-ranging biostratigraphical distribution suggest a high plasticity of the species and/or cooccurrence of several cryptic species. Hence, whereas Spiniferites elongatus and Spiniferites mirabilishyperacanthus are useful palaeoecological indicators despite their large morphological variability, Spiniferites ramosus is a taxon with an unconstrained ecological significance.

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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations25
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalynologySame topicGeology and Paleoclimatology ResearchFrench-language works237,207