MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391115122 · doi:10.1002/spp2.1546

<i>Archaeichnium haughtoni</i>: a robust burrow lining from the Ediacaran–Cambrian transition of Namibia

2024· article· en· W4391115122 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine A. Turk, Mikaela A. Pulsipher, Eugene W. Bergh, Marc Laflamme, Simon A.F. Darroch

Bibliographic record

VenuePapers in Palaeontology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsAmgen (Canada)University of Toronto
FundersDivision of Environmental BiologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPaleontological SocietyVanderbilt University
KeywordsBurrowPaleontologyHolotypeTaxonGeologyIncertae sedisArchaeologyGeographyEcologyBiologyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Following various assignments to Archaeocyatha, worm tubes, and finally incertae sedis , the enigmatic Ediacaran–Cambrian taxon Archaeichnium haughtoni has in recent years come to represent somewhat of a wastebasket taxon to which the indeterminate tapering tubular forms common across this interval are assigned. This ‘catch‐all’ status has been aided in part by both suboptimal specimen photography and the temporary loss of the holotype after its second redescription in 1978. Recent rediscovery of the A. haughtoni holotype in the collections of the Iziko South African Museum in Cape Town has enabled a much‐needed re‐assessment of this critical and cryptic taxon, with results suggesting that this material from the latest Ediacaran or earliest Cambrian of Namibia is among the earliest fossil record examples of marine worm burrow linings, and the oldest examples of linings robust enough to withstand exhumation and current transport. These traces indicate the emergence of this important animalian ecosystem engineering behaviour closer to the Ediacaran–Cambrian boundary than previously thought.

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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePapers in PalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207