MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Chingandzha flora of the Okhotsk-Chukotka volcanic belt

2019· article· en· W3083718141 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. B. Golovneva

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeobotany · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlora (microbiology)TaxodiumVolcanoCretaceousGeologyGeographyPhytogeographyEcologyPaleontologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chingandzha flora comes from the volcanic-sedimentary deposits of the Chingandzha Formation (the Okhotsk-Chukotka volcanic belt, North-East of Russia). The main localities of the Chingandzha flora are situated in the Omsukchan district of the Magadan Region: on the Tap River (basin of the middle course of the Viliga River), on the Kananyga River, near the mouth of the Rond Creek, and in the middle reaches of the Chingandzha River (basin of the Tumany River). The Chingandzha flora includes 23 genera and 33 species. Two new species (Taxodium viligense Golovn. and Cupressinocladus shelikhovii Golovn.) are described, and two new combinations (Arctopteris ochotica (Samyl.) Golovn. and Dalembia kryshtofovichii (Samyl.) Golovn.) are created. The Chingandzha flora consists of liverworts, horsetails, ferns, seed ferns, ginkgoaleans, conifers, and angiosperms. The main genera are Arctop teris, Osmunda, Coniopteris, Cladophlebis, Ginkgo, Sagenoptepis, Sequoia, Taxodium, Metasequoia, Cupressinocladus, Protophyllocladus, Pseudoprotophyllum, Trochodendroides, Dalembia, Menispermites, Araliaephyllum, Quereuxia. The Chingandzha flora is distinct from other floras of the Okhotsk-Chukotka volcanic belt (OCVB) in predominance of flowering plants and in absence of the Early Cretaceous relicts such as Podozamites, Phoenicopsis and cycadophytes. According to its systematic composition and palaeoecological features, the Chingandzha flora is similar to the Coniacian Kaivayam and Tylpegyrgynay floras of the North-East of Russia, which were distributed at coastal lowlands east of the mountain ridges of the OCVB. Therefore, the age of the Chingandzha flora is determined as the Coniacian. This flora is assigned to the Kaivayam phase of the flora evolution and to the Anadyr Province of the Siberian-Canadian floristic realm. The Chingandzha flora is correlated with the Coniacian Aleeky flora from the Viliga-Tumany interfluve area and with other Coniacian floras of the OCVB: the Chaun flora of the Central Chukotka, the Kholchan flora of the Magadan Region and the Ul’ya flora of the Ul’ya Depression.

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 score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.148
Teacher spread0.146 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeobotanySame topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207