MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019581321 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2020.17

Elviniid trilobites from the <i>Elvinia</i> Zone (late Cambrian, Furongian) of Mendoza, western Argentina

2020· article· en· W3019581321 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Franco Tortello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleontologyGeologyLineage (genetic)Block (permutation group theory)ArchaeologyGeographyBiologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the 1950s, Carlos Rusconi reported the biostratigraphically important Furongian trilobites Elvinia Walcott and Irvingella Ulrich and Resser from an exotic limestone block (La Cruz Olistolith) of the San Isidro area, Precordillera of Mendoza, western Argentina. Although several local species were erected by Rusconi at that time, most of them were later listed as junior synonyms of E . roemeri (Shumard) or I . major Ulrich and Resser, and this was followed in subsequent studies. A systematic revision of all the available specimens of Elvinia and Irvingella from the Rusconi collection at the Museo de Ciencias Naturales y Antropológicas J.C. Moyano (Mendoza) is provided herein. The occurrence of E . roemeri is supported by the present study, while the associated Irvingella species include I . jorusconii Rusconi, I . platycephala Rusconi, and Irvingella sp. The latter represent “advanced” forms in terms of morphological development in the Irvingella lineage, and these, together with E . roemeri , are typical of the uppermost part of the Elvinia Zone (uppermost Steptoean). Irvingella jorusconii , I . platycephala , and Irvingella sp. appear to be endemic to the Argentinian Precordillera, but are related to species from central Texas and northwest Canada.

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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207