A COMPARISON OF SOME PALEOGENE FUNGAL PALYNOMORPHS FROM ARCTIC CANADA AND FROM PATAGONIA, SOUTHERN ARGENTINA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COMPARACION DE ALGUNOS PALINOMORFOS DE HONGOS PALEOGENOS DEL ARTICO DE CANADA Y DE PATAGONIA, SUR DE ARGENTINA.- La presente contribucion muestra la comparacion entre restos de hongos presentes en palinofloras del Terciario inferior, provenientes del Artico Canadiense y de la Patagonia Argentina. Al respecto, el Paleogeno del norte de Canada esta caracterizado por diversos y a menudo muy abundantes esporas y otros restos de hongos. Ocasionalmente los mismos constituyen el total de las palinofloras en muestras del Palecgeno. Una similar diversidad de estos palinomorfos ha sido notada en palinofloras del Terciario inferior de la Patagonia Argentina. Muchas de las especies de palinomorfos de hongos aqui descriptas son similares y aparentan tener el mismo rango estratigrafico en el P .ileogeno en Patagonia y en el norte de Canada, punto sobre el cual deseamos llamar la atencion. Estas especies estan asociadas con palinofloras embriofiticas, las que sin embargo, son diferentes en los hemisferios sur y norte, particularmente las angiospermas. Especies similares a las de restos de hong os aqui tratadas han sido citadas para China, Australia y Europa. En consecuencia, algunas d e ellas aparentan tener una distribucion cosmopolita y podrian ser usadas para correlacion intercontinental, y correlacion a traves de los limites provinciales floristicos, particularmente en secciones no marinas donde dinoflagelados y otros fosiles marinos estan ausentes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".