Development, taxonomy, and phylogenetic relationships of species of<i>Paraclimacograptus</i>(Graptoloidea) from the Canadian Arctic and the Southern Urals of Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An investigation of the morphology and astogenetic pattern of isolated specimens of two species ofParaclimacograptuspermits an assessment of the phylogenetic relationships of this genus. Forty-two specimens previously assigned toParaclimacograptus innotatusssp. isolated from turbiditic limestone from the Southern Urals of Russia (Cystograptus vesiculousZone) and limestone concretions from the Canadian Arctic (Coronograptus cyphusZone) were examined using the method of infrared video microscopy.Paraclimacograptushas a Pattern H astogeny and is therefore a member of the family Normalograptidae. At least three species can be distinguished using biometric criteria,P. innotatus, P. exquisitus, andP. obesus.Rhabdosomal characteristics ofParaclimacograptusindicate that it is phylogenetically related to early species of the genusNeodiplograptus.The point of divergence of the proximal thecae is defined by the interfingering of fuselli of markedly different widths. This suggests that fuselli were not necessarily secreted at a constant rate. In addition, this pattern of fusellar interfingering is here regarded as more consistent with a pterobranch mode of secretion than with a model of growth under an enveloping extrathecal mantle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".