MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099412700

FR UTEXITES FROM STROMATOLITES OF THE GUNFLINT IRON

2015· article· en· W7099412700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Law
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProterozoicDevonianPrecambrianStromatolitePaleozoicPhanerozoicCarbonateSedimentary rockMicrobial mat
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The microfossil Frutexites is known from many Palaeozoic and some Proterozoic carbonate sedimentary ocks. We recently found unusually well-preserved xamples in the early Proterozoic Gunflint Iron Formation of Ontario, Canada. These are pre-served in chert, along with other microfossils of the Gunflint microbiota. The Gun-flint examples have previously been described as laminated, columnar-branching micro-stromatolites. We have found narrow tubes (interpreted as trichome moulds) axially placed in many of the microcolumns. By comparison with extant organisms, we inter-pret Frutexites as a thick-sheathed scytonematacean cyanophyte. These are the oldest known fossil scytonemataceans. They apparently grew within mats of other micro-organisms. These probably were photosynthetic organisms, which may have significant implications in the interpretation f some occurrences, uch as in the fore-reef facies of Devonian reefs in Western Australia. INTRODUC~ON The Gunflint microbiota from southern Ontario is famous as the first well-preserved assemblage of Precambrian microfossils to be described (see Awramik and Barghoorn, 1977, for references to earlier work}. Its isotopic age is not well established, but is older than 1685 + 24 Ma, and may be approximately 2000 Ma old (for a discussion see Knoll et al., 1978}. The microfossils are organically preserved in dark grey to black cherts, and in-frequently as iron-oxide replacements or casts in red cherts. The dominant taxa are found in both modes of preservation i the Gunflint Iron Formation

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArtificial Intelligence in LawFrench-language works237,207