MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

UPPER HOMERIAN (UPPER WENLOCK, SILURIAN) GRAPTOLITES FROM ARCTIC CANADA

2002· article· en· W6906120452 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBioOne Complete (BioOne) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaunaArcticThe arcticGlobal biodiversity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An extraordinarily well-preserved upper Homerian (uppermost Wenlock) post-extinction (post-lundgreni Event) graptolite fauna is described from Arctic Canada. The fauna of dendroids, retiolitids and monograptids, predominantly of uncompressed and isolated material, demonstrates almost totally new morphological features in comparison with the pre-extinction fauna. The two species of the lowest post-extinction fauna are followed by a rapid proliferation in the middle part of the interval, resulting in the maximum diversity, 21 species, for the entire upper Homerian. The upper Homerian is divided into three biostratigraphic units: the lower nassa-dubius Biozone, middle praedeubeli-deubeli Biozone, and the upper ludensis Biozone. The total fauna consists of ten species of monograptids and 11 species of retiolitids; of the latter group, three (Baculograptus, Papiliograptus and Doliograptus) are new genera, and six (B. batesi, P. papilio, P.? petilus, D. latus, Doliograptus sp. A, and Spinograptus praerobustus) are new species. Among the recognized species of monograptids, only Colonograptus schedidoneus and Lobograptus? cornuatus are confined to the Arctic, while five species of retiolitids (B. batesi, P.? petilus, D. latus, Doliograptus sp. A, and Spinograptus praerobustus) appear to be endemic.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.214
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.015 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioOne Complete (BioOne)Same topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207