MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6948776994 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.10912376

Siboglinidae Caullery 1914

2017· article· en· W6948776994 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTube (container)CretaceousBuckleCarbonateCold seep

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

?Family Siboglinidae Caullery, 1914 (?vestimentiferan) ‘Ellef Ringnes tubes’ (Fig. 11A, B, D, E) 1989 serpulid worm tubes Beauchamp, Harrison, Nassichuk, Krouse, & Eliuk: 54, fig. 2. 1992 serpulid worm tubes Beauchamp & Savard: 438, figs 2b, 5b. 2013 tubeworms Williscroft: 20, fig. 5c, d. 2017 vestimentiferan worm tubes Williscroft, Grasby, Beauchamp, Little, Dewing, Birgel, Poulton, & Hryniewicz: 797, fig. 8l, m. Material. NRC C-581891 QQA 10-22, clustered broken fragments of large tubes, mostly in various orientations however some tubes are aligned parallel to each other. NRC C-541891 CPPL, tubes observed in thin section. Provided by S. E. Grasby. Occurrence. Ellef Ringnes Island seep carbonates, Arctic, Canada. Christopher Formation, Lower Albian, Cretaceous (Beauchamp et al. 1989; Beauchamp & Savard 1992; Williscroft 2013). Description. Carbonate tubes are non-branching, do not appear attached to other tubes, and are not agglutinated (Fig. 11A, B). They are 2.0–10.0 mm in diameter, more or less straight, and have smooth walls. In thin section, the tubes show very thick, concentrically multi-layered walls (Fig. 11D, E) that are very likely organic due to the presence of breaks in the tube wall that reveal potential torn misaligned layers that have curved slightly away from each other (Fig. 11D, E). The round cross sections suggest that the tubes are likely to originally have been rigid and inflexible. Remarks. These tubes were previously considered to have been made by serpulids (Beauchamp & Savard 1992; Williscroft 2013), but have more recently been interpreted as vestimentiferan worm tubes (Williscroft et al. 2017). Evidence of an originally calcareous tube wall such as chevron-like layering is absent, while torn fibres point to the tubes having been originally organic in composition. The thick tube walls and neat, well-consolidated multi-layering are very characteristic of vestimentiferan tubes, and the size of these tubes and their hardness support this interpretation. However, these tubes only group among modern siboglinid tubes when more homoplasy is permitted within the cladistic analysis (Fig. 23B). For the above reasons, we tentatively suggest that the large tubes from Ellef Ringnes Island are likely the anterior sections of vestimentiferan tubes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.252
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 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicMarine Biology and Ecology Research→French-language works237,207→