MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385495984 · doi:10.20431/2349-0381.1005004

Connecting Fossil Inclusions with Artistic Representations to Approach Scientific Questions

2023· article· en· W4385495984 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Szanajda, Yu Jie Li

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAestheticsEpistemologySociologyArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION TO PALEOARTThe interactions at different levels between art and science have been well documented as illustrated in these publications of my authorship [1][2][3][4][5][6][7].One of these interactions is paleoart, which is considered to have originated in early 1800s in England [8].Paleoart was defined by Ansón et al. [9] as any original artistic work that attempts to depict prehistoric life according to scientific evidence or public perception.Although paleoart was defined as being bound by scientific data involving biologically informed restoration to fill in missing data and relating to extinct organisms, ancient (pre-1800) protopaleoart may include pieces that do not rigorously adhere to scientific evidence or may be inspired by ancient fossils [8].Accordingly, paleoart-inspired pieces may represent fossil remains or imagined depictions of the living creatures and their ecosystems [10].These pieces could include both vertebrate and invertebrate representations. PALEOZOIC ERA BIODIVERSITYEchinoderm paracrinoid, Oklahomacystis tribachiatus, from Oklahoma, USA (Figure 1A), and Amecystis sp. from Canada (Figure 1B) are fossils of the Ordovician period (Paleozoic era, 293 mya).A crinoid stem is also present on the plate (Figure 1B).The visual art piece illustrates the diversity of echinoderms in the Paleozoic era (Figure 1C).An interesting assemblage of fossils illustrates the biodiversity in the Devonian of Oklahoma, USA(Paleozoic era, 345-395 mya) (Figure 1D).Three different trilobites and a brachiopod are represented on this plate.A large cephalon of Huntonia, a trilobite with a strange cephalic process, an unidentified brachiopod, a complete enrolled Paciphacops campbelli and the "horns" of a Dicranurus trilobite.There is also another cephalon of Paciphacops and several other different brachiopods exposed on the large plate.The visual art piece recreates biodiversity and interactions between different organisms since ancient times (Figure 1E).Multiple crinoids are found in a plate from the Mississippian of Missouri, USA (Paleozoic era, Carboniferous Mississippian period, 320 -345 mya) (Figure 1F).The Uperocrinus pyriformis crinoid on the left has a long, smooth-plated cup and a multi-plated tegmen.The Macrocrinus konincki in the center of the slab is an unusual came rate crinoid with very nodose plates.The ornate example of Platycrinites sp. is at the bottom of the plate.There is also a partial Steganocrinus and many crinoid stem fragments (Actinocrinites spp.-?) on the matrix block.The art pieces from different artists inspire the importance of the seabed on the habitat diversity (Figures 1G and 1H).

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.005
Science and technology studies0.0040.024
Scholarly communication0.0190.018
Open science0.0030.012
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.297 · 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
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 venueInternational Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and EducationSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207