MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183180447 · doi:10.1139/cjb-2021-0005

Ancient diversity and turnover of cunninghamioid conifers (Cupressaceae): two new genera from the Upper Cretaceous of Hokkaido, Japan

2021· article· en· W3183180447 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Brian A. Atkinson, Dori L. Contreras, Ruth A. Stockey, Gar W. Rothwell

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCupressaceaeBiologyCretaceousGenusBotanyLineage (genetic)CunninghamiaGymnospermPaleontologyPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conifers of the taxodiaceous grade of Cupressaceae were more diverse and widespread during the Mesozoic than they are today. The earliest diverging subfamily, Cunninghamioideae, only includes a single extant genus, but has at least 10 fossil genera. Here, two additional cunninghamioid genera are characterized on the basis of permineralized seed cones from the Upper Cretaceous of Hokkaido, Japan. These conifers display seed cone characters typical of cunninghamioids; however, they have a mosaic of characters that are not seen in any reported conifer of Cupressaceae. They are, therefore, designated as two new extinct species: Ohanastrobus hokkaidoensis gen. et sp. nov. and Nishidastrobus japonicum gen. et sp. nov. These newly reported conifers expand the taxonomic and morphological diversity of cunninghamioids. The stratigraphic and paleobiogeographic records of cunninghamioids and other fossil Cupressaceae with foliate seed cones indicate they peak in diversity during the Cretaceous. The living genera Taiwania and Cunninghamia appear during the Albian and Campanian, respectively, and maintain a nearly continuous fossil record through to today, while nearly all other extinct genera of Cupressaceae with foliate cones disappear by the close of the Campanian. As more ancient cunninghamioids are recovered, our understanding of macroevolutionary patterns of this once diverse lineage will be further elucidated.

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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207