MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390356047 · doi:10.37520/fi.2023.007

The early Eocene flora of Horsefly, British Columbia, Canada and its phytogeographic significance

2023· article· en· W4390356047 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathleen B. Pigg, Steven R. Manchester, Melanie L. DeVore

Bibliographic record

VenueFossil Imprint · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlora (microbiology)FloristicsTaxonGeographyBryophyteChinaPaleontologyEcologyGeologyArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

About forty species, including a bryophyte, ferns, conifers, Ginkgo, and over 35 angiosperms, are recognized based on compression-impression remains from the early Eocene of Horsefly, British Colombia, Canada. This flora is in the north central part of a chain of late early Eocene fossil assemblages known as floras of the “Okanagan Highlands” (= “Okanogan Highlands” in the US). These floras extend from north central British Columbia, Canada southeast to Republic, Washington, USA. The Horsefly flora shows similarities to other Eocene Okanagan Highlands floras, such as McAbee, Falkland, Thomas Ranch and Republic, but with some additional rare taxa. In the broader sense, the Horsefly flora can be compared with early and middle Eocene floras of eastern Asia and midcontinental North America, but shares fewer elements with Europe. Ginkgo, Metasequoia, Pinus, Palaeocarpinus, ulmaceous leaves and Deviacer are shared with northeastern China as well as western North American sites. Fagopsis, Macginitiea, Dipteronia, Florissantia, Sassafras and Lagokarpos also occur in other western North American Eocene floras and Koelreuteria and Jenkinsella with Eocene paleofloras of China. These comparisons demonstrate probable floristic exchange between northwestern North America and northeastern China via a Beringian route during the late early Eocene.

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)0.000
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 score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 venueFossil ImprintSame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207