DISCOVERY AND COLLECTION OF TRIASSIC VERTEBRATE FOSSILS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red beds along the Canadian River valley containing petrified logs were first described in 1853 by Jules Marcou who regarded them as Triassic in age. Bones of large reptiles were discovered near Dockum, northwest of Spur, Dickens County, Texas, in 1890 by W. F. Cummins, and identified as Triassic by E. D. Cope. Cope accompanied Cummins on a collecting trip along the east side of the Llano Estacado in 1892 and secured additional Triassic vertebrates as well as fossils from the late Tertiary and Pleistocene deposits. The major portion of our knowledge of the Dockum verte-brates comes from the work of E. C. Case of the University of Michigan who began describing fossils from Crosby County, Texas, in 1920, in part material found by G. D. Doughty of Post, and William J. Eliot of Spur, Texas. Dr. Case returned to these localities repeatedly during the next 20 years and was assisted in his fieldwork by William Buettner. In 1927 he col-lected well-preserved reptiles near Otis Chalk, Howard County, Texas, and in 1930 he obtained an important concentration of amphibians in northern Scurry County, Texas. The prolific site on Sierrita de la Cruz Creek northwest of Amarillo in Potter County, was discovered by Floyd V. Studer of Amarillo in 1926; Case described material that he collected here in 1931; extensive collections were made around 1940 by the Pan-handle-Plains Museum at Canyon, Texas. Further collections in the Otis Chalk region were made by J. W. Stovall for the University of Oklahoma in 1931, and by
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".