MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4409359827 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2024-0070

Mammoth (<i>Mammuthus</i>) of probable last interglacial age from southwestern Minnesota, USA

2025· article· en· W4409359827 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jim I. Mead, Sandra L. Swift, Mary C. Carpenter

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMammothInterglacialArchaeologyGeologyPaleontologyPleistoceneGeographyPhysical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a fragmented skull with molars and tusks of a mammoth ( Mammuthus) from southwesternmost Minnesota. Surficial deposits in this corner of the state show that the area was ice-free between the Wisconsinan-age Des Moines Lobe and the James Lobe immediately to the west in South Dakota. Here, we report on the Late Pleistocene age mammoth from a new locality, the Chapman Mammoth Locality, within this interlobe area. We propose that the Chapman mammoth dates to the Sangamonian Interglacial (MIS 5a–e; “Sangamon Complex”; 128–75 ka) based on geological context. Given the available measurements of the Chapman molars and tusks as compared to other morphometric data on mammoths from around the continent, we cautiously identify the specimen as a large, older individual that belongs to Mammuthus columbi, the Columbian mammoth, or possibly Mammuthus jeffersonii, Jefferson's mammoth. Although mammoths are known from Minnesota, detailed morphological or chronological data have been presented in the literature for only a few. The Chapman Mammoth remains put a premium on better understanding the Sangamonian Interglacial fauna and flora of Minnesota.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences→Same topicPleistocene-Era Hominins and Archaeology→French-language works237,207→