Probability-based preservational variations within the early Cambrian Chengjiang biota (China)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chengjiang biota (Yunnan Province, China) is a treasure trove of soft-bodied animal fossils from the earliest stages of the Cambrian explosion. The mechanisms contributing to its unique preservation, known as the Burgess Shale-type preservation, are well understood. However, little is known about the preservation differences between various animal groups within this biota. This study compares tissue-occurrence data of 11 major animal groups in the Chengjiang biota using a probabilistic methodology. The fossil-based data from this study is compared to previous decay experiments. This shows that all groups are not equally preserved with some higher taxa more likely to preserve soft tissues than others. These differences in fossil preservation between taxa can be explained by the interaction of biological and environmental characteristics. A bias also results from differential taxonomic recognition, as some taxa are easily recognized from even poorly preserved fragments while other specimens are difficult to assign to higher taxa even with exquisite preservation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".