MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239888480 · doi:10.1017/s0022336000037380

Occurrence of the siliceous sponge spicule <i>Konyrium</i> (Hexactinellida) in the upper Cambrian of the Mackenzie Mountains, northwestern Canada

2002· article· en· W4239888480 on OpenAlexaffabout
Brian R. Pratt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSponge spiculeSpiculePaleontologyGeologySpongeTaxonPaleozoicMesozoicFossil RecordStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fossil record of siliceous sponges—Hexactinellida and demosponge “Lithistida”—hinges upon both body fossils plus isolated spicules mostly recovered from limestones by acid digestion. The earliest record of siliceous sponge spicules extends back to the late Neoproterozoic of Hubei, southern China (Steiner et al., 1993) and Mongolia (Brasier et al., 1997), and body fossils attributed to the hexactinellids have been described from the Ediacaran of South Australia (Gehling and Rigby, 1996); thus they are the oldest-known definite representatives of extant animal phyla. The Early Cambrian saw a remarkable diversification in spicule morphology, with the appearance of an essentially “modern” array of forms (Zhang and Pratt, 1994). While a diversity decline may have occurred with the late Early Cambrian extinction(s), the subsequent Paleozoic and Mesozoic fossil record of spicules shows a relatively consistent range of morphologies (e.g., Mostler, 1986; Bengtson et al., 1990; Webby and Trotter, 1993; Kozur et al., 1996; Zhang and Pratt, 2000). However, because spicule form is not restricted to individual taxa and many sponge species secrete a variety of spicule shapes, it is difficult to gauge true siliceous sponge diversity and to explore their biostratigraphic utility using only isolated spicules.

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 score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations1
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207