Names for trace fossils 2.0: theory and practice in ichnotaxonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A uniform approach to ichnotaxonomy has been for the most part positively received by the scientific community. We carry it further here, presenting a revised treatment of trace fossil groups. These should include cololites and regurgitalites as well as root traces. Signs of human technology may be seen as traces; however, they should not be named following the principles of zoological taxonomy and rules of zoological nomenclature. Microbially induced sedimentary structures are not considered as traces and neither are structures resulting from bioclaustration. The latter, also known as galls and embedment structures, may be named as cecidotaxa (cecidofamilies, -genera, -species; briefly cfam., cgen., csp.) and, as such, they are governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Cecidotaxa do not compete for synonymy with ichnotaxa, other parataxa or biotaxa. A revised list of ichnotaxobases includes the arrangement of subunits as well as (in a restricted way) size and bioglyphs. The principal type of substrate may serve as an ichnotaxobase, especially in bioerosion traces, but its sole use should be avoided, unless informed by knowledge about the behaviour of specialist producers. For the purpose of the nomenclatural code, we further propose to define ‘fossil’ as ‘not demonstrably postdating the beginning of the Holocene’ and provide a revised definition of ‘ichnotaxon’. Keywords Ichnology ichnotaxobases cecidotaxa bioerosion MISS ichnogeny
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 | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.006 |
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".