MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7078263532 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.16968887

FIGURE 9 in High local variability in elevation of the Oldman-Dinosaur Park Formation contact revealed by digital outcrop reconstruction, and implications for dinosaur biostratigraphy of the Late Cretaceous (Campanian) Belly River Group of Alberta, Canada

2025· other· en· W7078263532 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutcropBiostratigraphyCretaceousElevation (ballistics)Sedimentary rockGeologic mapGroup (periodic table)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FIGURE 9. Examination of BB190A and BB303 localities. A, BB190A quarry map overlain on orthomosaic. BB190A point represents location of stake for original 2019 quarry map; NW and SE stakes mark corrected 2022 quarry map. B, nodosaurid parascapular spine uncovered from BB190A quarry in 2018. C, nodosaurid left ischium uncovered from BB190A quarry in 2019. Coordinates in WGS84 / Universal Transverse Mercator zone 12N, EGM96 geoid. Quarry and formational contact locations available from database assembled by first author, updated from Currie and Koppelhus (2005). D, perspective render of narrow coulee hosting BB303 locality. E, hadrosaur maxilla found in coarsening upward sandstone at base of clay-ironstone intraclast lens. F, short sedimentary log of BB303; burgundy stroke marks same contact (between MUD3 and Rhythm 4) as in Figure 9D. Abbreviations: M, mudstone; Si, siltstone; FS, finegrained sandstone; CS, coarse-grained sandstone; P, pebbles.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→