MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245517559 · doi:10.1017/s0022336000017558

Evolution of the late Ordovician orthid brachiopod <i>Gnamptorhynchos</i> Jin, 1989 from <i>Platystrophia</i> King, 1850, in North America

2000· article· en· W4245517559 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jisuo Jin, Renbin Zhan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrdovicianPaleontologyGeologyGenusRidgeFaunaExtinction (optical mineralogy)Synonym (taxonomy)Extinction eventRange (aeronautics)BiologyEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gnamptorhynchos , a rhynchonellid-like orthid brachiopod, evolved from Platystrophia in Maysvillian (early Ashgill) time, and survived both the end-Richmondian and end-Hirnantian episodes of the latest Ordovician mass extinction. The name of the type species of Gnamptorhynchos, G. inversum Jin, 1989, is rejected and replaced by Gnamptorhynchos globatum (Twenhofel, 1928), which is a senior synonym. Gnamptorhynchos manitobensis new species is described here from the Selkirk Member (Maysvillian) of the Red River Formation, southern Manitoba. The new species is characterized by a transversely extended, strongly biconvex to globular shell with prominent umbones, relatively numerous costae and a notothyrial cavity supported dorsally by a short median ridge. It constituted part of a Late Ordovician epicontinental fauna that once spread widely in shallow, equatorial seas of North America. The new species is a morphological intermediate between Platystrophia and Gnamptorhynchos , with Platystrophia -like interareas, hingeline, and cardinal process, but Gnamptorhynchos -like shell posterior and notothyrial platform. Previously, Gnamptorhynchos was known from Hirnantian to mid-Aeronian rocks. The new species extends the lower range of the genus to Maysvillian.

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 score0.597
Threshold uncertainty score0.919

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations2
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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