MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996825467 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2019-0011

<i>Polypleuraspis</i> (Arthropoda, Trilobita) from the middle Cambrian (Miaolingian Series) around Kane Basin (Nunavut and Greenland)

2019· article· en· W2996825467 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
John S. Peel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrilobiteGeologyPaleontologySeries (stratigraphy)Structural basinCapeOceanographyArchaeologyOrdovicianGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polypleuraspis Poulsen, 1927, originally established on the basis of a single trilobite pygidium from the Cape Wood Formation of Inglefield Land, northwestern Greenland, is redescribed on the basis of material from additional occurrences in the Cape Wood and Telt Bugt formations exposed around Kane Basin in Ellesmere Island (Nunavut) and northern and northwestern Greenland. Polypleuraspis occurs together with Glossopleura Poulsen, 1927 in the Glossopleura walcotti Poulsen, 1927 Biozone of the Delamaran Stage of North American (Laurentian) usage, in middle Cambrian strata (Miaolingian Series) of the Wuliuan Stage. The type species, Polypleuraspis solitaria Poulsen, 1927, is compared with Polypleuraspis insignis Rasetti, 1951 from the Stephen Formation (Burgess Shale Formation) of British Columbia and to a new species from the Telt Bugt Formation of Daugaard-Jensen Land: Polypleuraspis glacialis sp. nov. Polypleuraspis cooperi Robison and Babcock, 2011, from the Spence Shale of Utah of similar age, is assigned to Polypleuraspidella gen. nov.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→