Bibliographic record
Abstract
Broad patterns of originations and extinctions of genera, as well as families and higher groups, have always interested those who study the fossil record (e.g., Sepkoski, 1984). They record an important part of the major changeovers, and thus the dynamics, of marine ecosystems over time (Droser et al., 1996; Droser and Sheehan, 1997). This seems especially true for the Paleozoic, when brachiopods were the dominant shelly animals on the seafloor in tropical, temperate, and even cold water settings. Attempts have also been made to determine turnover patterns at the species level (Patzkowsky and Holland, 1997), though this is a much more difficult task, as the validity of species depends a great deal on the skills of the taxonomist. A similar problem is the comparative analysis of diversification data based on a single continent, e.g., North America, as related to others (Miller, 1997a, b); though Laurentia is probably better studied than most areas except western Europe. The exercise of studying broad-scale generic gains and losses for the brachiopods is at the present time preliminary (only three volumes of the revised Treatise are published). The 1965 Treatise contains fewer than 25% of the genera known in detail and described today, with an almost exponential increase in taxonomic description since the 1960s (Williams, 1996). Since then, there have been dramatic revisions and re-interpretations of the evolutionary history of the major brachiopod families, as a new generation of brachiopod workers arrived and matured. We also have a considerably improved knowledge of molecular relationships within the Brachiopoda (Cohen and Gawthrop, 1996). Sound taxonomy is the fundamental basis for sound theoretical discussion of the nature and origins of major changeovers in phyla such as the Brachiopoda. Unfortunately, there are presently relatively few, active brachiopod specialists, as taxonomy has given way to other, more general interests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".