GRAPTOLITES FROM THE QILANG AND YINGAN FORMATIONS (CARADOC, ORDOVICIAN) OF KALPIN, WESTERN TARIM, XINJIANG, CHINA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Late Ordovician rocks of the Qilang and Yingan formations from the Kalpin area in the Tarim region of western Xinjiang, China (Tarim palaeoplate) contain a moderately diverse graptolite fauna. The fauna from the Qilang Formation contains Corynoides calicularis Nicholson, 1867; Dicranograptus clingani resicis Williams and Bruton, 1983; Lasiograptus costatus Lapworth, 1873; Pseudoclimacograptus scharenbergi (Lapworth, 1876); and Glossograptus sp. among other species. This assemblage most likely corresponds to the upper Climacograptus (Climacograptus) bicornis Zone? to lower C. (Diplacanthograptus) lanceolatus Zone of Australia. The Qilang Formation also yields the new taxon, Amplexograptus maxwelli spinousus new subspecies. The overlying Yingan Formation yields a more diverse assemblage that includes Climacograptus (Diplacanthograptus) spiniferus Ruedemann,1912; C. (D.) lanceolatus VandenBerg, 1990; Orthograptus quadrimucronatus (Hall, 1865); Amplexograptus praetypicalis Riva,1987; Dicellograptus pumilus Lapworth,1876; and D. morrisi Hopkinson, 1871. This assemblage most likely corresponds to the Corynoides americanus Zone through the C. (D.) spiniferus Zone of eastern Laurentia, or to the D. clingani Zone of Scotland and central Newfoundland. The presence of a C. (D.) lanceolatus and C. (D.) spiniferus succession in the Yingan Formation also suggests correlation with the Eastonian 1 and 2 of Australasia. The Yingan Formation faunas represent an offshore Pacific Province assemblage dominated by cosmopolitan epipelagic species. The fauna is most similar, both in terms of species composition and relative abundance patterns, to those of the Appalachian Basin. The Yingan faunas differ from the latter in the absence of Laurentian endemic species (except for Amplexograptus praetypicalis), and in the common occurrence of dicellograptids.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".