MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017006862 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2020.9

The last pteraspids (Vertebrata, Heterostraci): new material from the Middle Devonian of Alberta and Idaho

2020· article· en· W3017006862 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David K. Elliott, Linda S. Lassiter, Kathryn E. Geyer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianGenusPaleontologyGeologyPaleozoicTaxonLate Devonian extinctionEcologyBiologyCarboniferous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This report documents the last pteraspids, (armored, jawless members of the Heterostraci), which are otherwise only known from the Early Devonian of the Old Red Sandstone Continent. Tuberculate pteraspid heterostracans are described from the Middle Devonian beds of two formations in western North America. The late Givetian Yahatinda Formation of Alberta and British Columbia consists of channels cut into lower Paleozoic rocks and represents deposition in marine to littoral environments. Clavulaspis finis (Elliott et al., 2000a) new combination is redescribed from additional material from the Yahatinda Formation and reassigned to the new genus Clavulaspis because the original genus name is invalid. The Eifelian Spring Mountain beds of Idaho consist of a large channel that represents a clastic-dominated estuarine environment. It contains Scutellaspis wilsoni new genus new species, and the previously described species from the Spring Mountain beds is redescribed and reassigned to Ecphymaspis new genus, which was prompted by new material and a review of the validity of the original genus name. Phylogenetic analysis shows that these three new taxa form part of the derived clade Protaspididae. UUID: http://zoobank.org/9cf09b21-cec1-4ce4-bc2b-658d0b515e10

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)0.000
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 score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207