MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4223590913 · doi:10.1111/ter.12596

Potential and problems in evaluating secular changes in the diversity of animal‐substrate interactions at ichnospecies rank

2022· article· en· W4223590913 on OpenAlexaff
Li‐Jun Zhang, Luís A. Buatois, M. Gabriela Mángano

Bibliographic record

VenueTerra Nova · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsPaleozoicDiversification (marketing strategy)PaleontologyGeologyPalaeogeographyPaleoecologyTrace fossilRank (graph theory)EcologyBiologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Changes in diversity of trace fossils through time provide information about evolutionary innovations in animal‐substrate interactions. Global ichnodiversity changes at ichnogeneric rank are useful to capture major trends, but may be insufficient to reveal minor behavioural innovations. A quantitative analysis of ichnodiversity trajectories at ichnospecies rank for bioturbation structures has been performed for the first time at a global scale to evaluate how innovations in animal‐substrate interactions may be reflected at this ichnotaxonomic hierarchy. The timing of diversification at ichnospecific rank is highly variable, but mostly linked to the Cambrian Explosion (CE) and the Mesozoic Marine Revolution (MMR). Nearly all top‐heavy ichnogenera diversified during the MMR and most bottom‐heavy ichnogenera illustrate innovations during the CE. Timing of diversification at ichnospecies rank refines characterization of the ichnological equivalents of the Cambrian, Palaeozoic and Modern evolutionary fauna. Evaluating the timing of ichnospecific diversification within ichnogenera is a valuable tool in evolutionary palaeoecology.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations29
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTerra NovaSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207