MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252728484 · doi:10.1017/s0022336000031267

Development, taxonomy, and phylogenetic relationships of species of<i>Paraclimacograptus</i>(Graptoloidea) from the Canadian Arctic and the Southern Urals of Russia

2000· article· en· W4252728484 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer C. Russel, Michael J. Melchin, Tatjana N. Koren'

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticPhylogenetic treePaleontologyTaxonomy (biology)GenusBiologyThe arcticZoologyEcologyGeologyOceanographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation of the morphology and astogenetic pattern of isolated specimens of two species of Paraclimacograptus permits an assessment of the phylogenetic relationships of this genus. Forty-two specimens previously assigned to Paraclimacograptus innotatus ssp. isolated from turbiditic limestone from the Southern Urals of Russia ( Cystograptus vesiculous Zone) and limestone concretions from the Canadian Arctic ( Coronograptus cyphus Zone) were examined using the method of infrared video microscopy. Paraclimacograptus has 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 , and P. obesus. Rhabdosomal characteristics of Paraclimacograptus indicate that it is phylogenetically related to early species of the genus Neodiplograptus. 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 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)0.001
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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207