MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Kakanaut flora of the Koryak Upland

2025· article· W7127136888 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. A. Zolina, L. B. Golovneva

Bibliographic record

VenuePalaeobotany · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlora (microbiology)Temperate climateTaxonFaunaFloristicsAssemblage (archaeology)Endemism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Kakanaut flora of the late Maastrichtian comes from the Kakanaut Formation, developed in the southeastern part of the Koryak Upland (North-East of Russia). Its age is determined based on the occurrence of flora-bearing layers above marine sediments with upper Maastrichtian fauna and below of layers with numerous dinosaur remains. A new species has been described and three nomenclature combinations have been proposed. English diagnoses for 5 genera and 16 species are given. The Kakanaut flora includes 47 plant species and consists of liverworts, horsetails, ferns, cycads, bennettites, ginkgos, conifers and angiosperms. The dominant groups are angiosperms and conifers. This flora is characterized by a combination of relict Early Cretaceous taxa and young Paleogene elements, as well as high endemism at the species and generic levels. The Kakanaut and Gornorechensk floras as well as the Vysokorechensk floristic assemblage are united into the Kakanaut regional flora, which was distributed in the territory of the Anadyr province of the Siberian-Canadian paleofloristic region in the Late Maastrichtian. It is shown that at the end of the Late Cretaceous, a temperate marine climate with mild winter and warm, humid summer existed in the territory of the Koryak Upland.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.173
Teacher spread0.168 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalaeobotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207