MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300754843 · doi:10.55468/gc365

Collecting invertebrate trace fossils

2006· article· en· W4300754843 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephen K. Donovan, R.K. Pickerill, D.J. Blissett

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Curator · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity College DublinNational Geographic Society
KeywordsTrace fossilGeologyPaleontologySedimentary rockIchnologyTRACE (psycholinguistics)InvertebrateProvenanceNatural (archaeology)Clastic rockArchaeologyEcologyBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trace fossils result from the behavioural activities between organisms and variable substrates. They form an integral part of the collections of many natural history museums, providing exciting specimens for display and important material for scientific research. Ichnofossils preserved parallel to stratification in sedimentary rocks can be collected in large slabs either from float or liberated by hammering or rock saw. Laterally extensive specimens commonly have a repetitive morphology, so a fragment may provide ample data for identification and description. The morphology of an ichnofossil that cross-cuts stratification will be more difficult to recognise in the field and may require laboratory preparation of slabs using a rock saw. Bioerosive structures in or on litho- or bioclasts may be easy to collect, but care must be taken to collect data relating to provenance, that is, whether the clasts are autochthonous or allochthonous.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0270.012

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological CuratorSame topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207