MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4381377738 · doi:10.1017/jpa.2023.34

Trilobites from the<i>Cedaria prolifica</i>Zone (Cambrian, upper Guzhangian) of the Precordillera of Mendoza, western Argentina

2023· article· en· W4381377738 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Franco Tortello

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Paleontology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaleontologyTaxonGenusGeologyType localityBlock (permutation group theory)GeographyArchaeologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Trilobites from the upper Guzhangian of the southern Argentine Precordillera, preliminarily described by Carlos Rusconi in the 1950s, are revised herein. The specimens studied were collected from an allochthonous limestone block of La Cruz Olistoliths at 200 m northwest of Estancia San Isidro locality (San Isidro area, Mendoza). Taxa comprise Kormagnostus seclusus (Walcott, 1884), Cedaria prolifica Walcott, 1924, C . puelchana Rusconi, 1954, Tricrepicephalus texanus (Shumard, 1861), Meteoraspis metra (Walcott, 1890), Coosia conicephala (Rusconi, 1954) new combination, Coosella texana ? Resser, 1942, Nasocephalus cf. N. nasutus Wilson, 1954, and Olenoides proa (Rusconi, 1954) new combination. The North American genera Meteoraspis Resser, 1935 and Nasocephalus Wilson, 1954 are reported confidently from South America for the first time. This assemblage is representative of the Cedaria prolifica Zone, which correlates with the lower Crepicephalus Zone of the traditional North American genus-based zonation. Most of the genera and species identified were previously described exclusively from Canada, the United States, and northwestern Mexico, a fact that provides new support to an allochthonous Laurentian origin of the Argentine Precordillera.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207