Fish and Reptiles of the ReBecca’s Hollow Site, Williams Fork Formation, Late Cretaceous (Edmontonian), Colorado & ‘Between the Dinosaurs’ Toes’: Approaches to Exhibiting Microvertebrate Fossils in Museum Displays (With Emphasis on the Cretaceous Period)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ReBecca’s Hollow locality of the Late Cretaceous Williams Fork Formation (northwestern Colorado) yields a diverse, actinopterygian-dominated, vertebrate fauna from a freshwater environment. This assemblage is temporally correlative with the Horseshoe Canyon and St. Mary River Formations in Alberta but has many faunal similarities to Lancian localities from MT, WY, and the Dakotas. The discrepancy in fauna between the WFF and its Canadian contemporaries supports the hypothesis, proposed by others, for discrete faunal/climate zones between northern and central Laramidia across the Campanian-Maastrichtian boundary. The microvertebrate fossils from this locality provide important paleoeological data but, like other small fossils, are difficult to display and interpret in a museum setting. I propose a display method based on notions of worldbuilding and contextual learning that visually explain these specimens to museum audiences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".