dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
Similarly, the Natural History Museum (London, UK) hosts a collection of over 40 million specimens, of which currently over 450,000 are available through the online catalogue. The Musée d'Histoire Naturelle  (Paris, France)  is also digitizing the data from one of the largest fossil collections in the world, with only a minor part of the collections available in the digital index so far. The French national inventory of all palaeontological collections is also an ongoing project, digitizing the millions of specimens of over 50 French universities and museums (e. g. ,  Servais et al. , 2012). But even many much smaller countries have today complete digitized geoscience collections, as, for example, The Netherlands (www. naturalis. nl) with over 3 million fossils, or Estonia (www. geocollections.
info), that are also used for biodiversity studies in the early Palaeozoic (e. g. ,  Hints et al. , 2010 Hints et al. , , 2018;; Toom et al. , 2019)  Such projects of database creation, compilation and digitization of data from public collections are mostly accessible via internet. It will still take a few more decades to complete all datasets, and to allow an interaction between them. However, in addition to these numerous digital public databases, many collections and databases are not (yet) public, nor publicly available. This highlights the lack of data of some important fossil groups present in the early Palaeozoic. For example, there are so far no data in the PBDB related to the Palaeozoic phytoplankton. The published biodiversity curves related to this group are entirely based on databases that are not included in the PBDB, nor the GBDB (e.
g. ,  Nowak et al. , 2015; Zheng et al. , 2020; Kroeck et al. , 2022). Similarly, the datasets on Ordovician and Silurian polychaete worms (e. g. ,  Eriksson et al. , 2013)  are not available in the PBDB. The data concerning the chitinozoans have also never been integrated with the PBDB, although detailed diversity curves are published for the group (e. g. ,  Paris et al. , 2004; Achab and Paris, 2007; Goldman et al. , 2020). For many other important early Palaeozoic fossil groups the data available in the global databases are only partly compiled, but compilations of the diversity of these groups have been published, often in special issues resulting from a group effort (e. g. ,  Webby et al. , 2004a; Harper and Servais, 2013). The data on graptolites in both the PBDB and the GBDB are only a fraction of the data compiled by the graptolite specialists over the last decades (e.
g. ,  Crampton et al. , 2016; Goldman et al. , 2020). The situation is very similar for other groups, like the bryozoans (e. g. ,  Ernst, 2018) , the conodonts (e. g. ,  Goldman et al. , 2020) , and especially for the trilobites (e. g. ,  Adrain et al. , 1998; Adrain, 2013) , for which the complete datasets remain in the personal domains of the palaeontologists and principal investigators of the respective fossil group, and only a fraction of the data is available in the PBDB or GBDB. The sophisticated statistical methods used in producing the diversity curves in the PBDB and GBDB are today not yet able to fully overcome sampling bias. However, if in the future all collected data can be integrated into a single compilation, it would be possible to move towards a truly global signal.
Comparing 'global' biodiversity curves It is very difficult to compare the biodiversity (taxonomic richness) curves of different fossil groups. For the Ordovician radiation,  Servais et al. (2010)  clearly showed that there are different trends, although it is difficult to compare the different datasets, compilations and biodiversity curves, produced for the different fossil groups in  Webby et al. (2004a)  or separately. Not only does the taxonomical level vary from one group to another, but also the different methods used to measure (or recalculate and model) biodiversity. Cooper (2004)  suggested a common standard for all groups involved in the Ordovician radiation, but the different fossil groups have been treated sometimes in very different ways, and it is difficult, if not impossible to compare the different curves, that therefore logically produce different signals.
Sepkoski's compendium versus PBDB Several authors have already compared the diversity curves generated by  Sepkoski's compendium (2002)  compendium and by the PBDB (e. g. ,  Alroy, 2008 Alroy, , 2010))  Here we plot on Fig. 2A  the early Palaeozoic part (Cambrian to Silurian) of the biodiversity curves generated by  Sepkoski's compendium (2002)  and the early Phanerozoic biodiversity curves of the PBDB  (Alroy et al. , 2008; Alroy, 2010). Both datasets provide a similar signal, with a long-term radiation over the entire early Palaeozoic. Whereas the Late Ordovician Extinction Event (LOME) was clearly visible in Sepkoski's curve (who used time bins of approximately 5 myr), it became invisible in the genus-level diversity curve of  Alroy et al. (2008) , based on the sampling-standardized analysis of the PBDB, because the curve was limited to time bins of about 11 myr, thus having a relatively low resolution, not revealing short-term fluctuations in the fossil record, such as the LOME.
Recent PBDB versus GBDB 'global' biodiversity curves In recent years, several groups of specialists have produced biodiversity curves generated from data available from the PBDB and the GBDB. Both databases, that are global in scope, attempted to compile data from all parts of the world, but it is obvious that neither the PBDB (including mainly data from North America and Europe) nor the GBDB (focused on Chinese data) are truly global. For many palaeogeographical areas the data are not (yet) included in the databases, and for some other regions, the data are simply not yet available (e. g. , Antarctica, but also major parts of Africa). Rasmussen et al. (2019)  utilised data available in the PBDB to construct a diversity curve for the early Palaeozoic. To overcome the problem of low temporal resolution (11 myr in  Alroy et al.
(2019, fig. 2) is reproduced here in Fig. 2B. Kröger et al. (2019)  used the same dataset to produce an almost identical diversity curve  (Kröger et al. , 2019, fig. 1 ; Fig. 2B ), that was adapted, but is slightly different from  Rasmussen et al. (2019, fig. 2). Kröger et al. (2019)  added information about the genus level relative diversification rate, the genus level extinction and origination rates and the duration of the forward and backward survivorship of 50, 70 and 90% of the cohort of genera of each time bin. These different measures allowed  Kröger et al. (2019)  to divide the early Palaeozoic radiation into different parts. Both the curves (Fig. 2B ) of  Rasmussen et al. (2019)  and Kröger et al. (  2019 ) indicated a strong increase of diversity in Cambrian Series 2 (Cambrian Stage 3), already observed by  Na and Kiessling (2015) , and thus illustrating the presence of taxa in the PBDB, resulting mainly from the numerous descriptions of fossils in the major Lagerstätten.
(2020)  have published a biodiversity curve covering the entire Palaeozoic, based on the GBDB. The section-based database used for drawing the biodiversity curve included over 11,000 species from over 3000 sections. The supercomputer Tianhe II used the CONOP. SAGA  (Sadler et al. , 2009)  programme to construct the composite biodiversity curves. This programme allows comparison of the stratigraphical ranges from many localities in order to assemble them in a global dataset with first and last occurrences. Fan et al. (2020)  considered that, although the generated data were largely derived from Chinese sections, the tectonic blocks on which they reside were situated in a large spectrum of palaeolatitudes, and thus reflect global biodiversity patterns. A small amount of data from the European Silurian and Devonian were added, because these intervals were poorly represented in the original (Chinese) dataset.
The results allowed the production of genus and species level diversity trajectories for different fossil groups from the Cambrian to the Early Triassic. The results of Fan et al. (2020, fig. 1A, B ; Fig. 2C ) revealed a sharp increase in diversity associated with the Cambrian Explosion, followed by a 'pause' (plateau) through the other parts of the Cambrian. A nearly threefold increase in species diversity was observed during the Early Ordovician. Most interestingly,  Fan et al. (2020)  also related the GOBE to a diversity increase in their biodiversity curve, that according to their calculations lasted precisely 29. 72 myr. It started at 497. 05 Ma (in the late Cambrian) and lasted until 467. 33 Ma, i. e. , the Middle Ordovician. Both studies of the data in the GBDB and PBDB thus provided signals that have the scope to be global and both datasets allowed the authors to define, on the grounds of numbers of diversity measures only, both the 'Cambrian Explosion' and the 'Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event.
' It is interesting to note that the timing of the Cambrian 'Explosion' differs slightly in both datasets, but that the definition of the GOBE is totally different: while the GBDB  (Fan et al. , 2020)  indicates a GOBE in the late Cambrian and Early Ordovician, the PBDB related publications by  Rasmussen et al. (2019)  and  Kröger et al. (2019)  define a rather short GOBE in the Middle Ordovician (see also  Servais et al. , 2021). The different views are possibly reflected by different signals in the 'global' datasets, that seem to originate from differences in the source of data, probably related to palaeogeography.
The incompleteness in the 'global' signal In the light of understanding the dynamics of the Palaeozoic radiations,  Harper et al. (2020)  compared previously published datasets that attempted to include all fossil groups and all palaeocontinents. It became obvious that none of the available datasets is complete in terms of palaeocontinental coverage. As indicated above, the PBDB is mostly focused on data published in journals that are listed in the reference database used in western countries, whereas the GBDB is clearly based initially on the large datasets available from China. Harper et al. (2020)  used the raw data to illustrate the presence/ absence of fossils occurrences in the PBDB (Fig. 2D ). Harper et al. (2020)  used three different diversity measures: the total, normalized, and sampled diversities.
Total diversity (all taxa observed in a given time interval) differs from the sampled diversity (all taxa recovered in a given time interval) and from normalized diversity sensu  Cooper (2004)  (all taxa ranging from the interval below to the interval above, plus half the taxa that originate and/or become extinct within the interval, plus half of single-interval taxa). In addition, it has to be taken into account that the data pooling is not the same as in previous studies. The data are plotted in the 26 time-bins that are easily available from the PBDB. However, none of the methods used by  Alroy et al. (2008) ,  Rasmussen et al. (2019)  and  Kröger et al. (2019)  have been applied. The diversity curve in Fig. 2D  thus provides an indication of the presence of data (as record input in the database), without an attempt to remove biases (such as preservation, sampling effort, taxonomic oversplitting).
A look at the raw data in the PBDB indicates that there is a dramatic absence of data in the upper Cambrian, i. e. , the Furongian (including three stages: the Paibian, the Jiangshanian and Stage 10). This interval is characterized by a lack of data in the PBDB, illustrating the 'Furongian Gap'  (Harper et al. , 2019) , evidently separating two obvious intervals of high data input in the datasets: the Cambrian and Ordovician radiations, that are logically separated as two distinct parts. It becomes obvious, when comparing the curves generated with correction methods and the raw data, that the Cambrian 'Explosion' (if defined as a strong increase in taxonomic richness) is an artefact and the result of an extraordinary amount of sampling. For the Ordovician radiation, a three-step increase is also obvious, that partly reflects the three phases identified in the Ordovician biodiversification: the plankton revolution in the early part of the Ordovician (although several major planktonic groups are not in the PBDB), the major radiation of bottom-level (benthic) communities in the Middle Ordovician (that were considered by some as the 'major pulses' of the Ordovician radiation  (Trotter et al.
The Cambrian 'Explosion' thus has different records depending on the datasets used. Similarly, the Ordovician radiation started in some parts of the world (China, Gondwana) in the late Cambrian, when a palaeocontinent such as Baltica was in higher latitudes and far away from tropical waters that are ideal for speciation and diversification (see below, Fig. 6 ). Logically, when Baltica moved to lower latitudes during the Middle Ordovician, the diversification rates 'exploded' and the numbers of taxa in the PBDB are, not surprisingly, much higher for this interval (e. g. ,  Hammer, 2003) , because a large input of data compilation in the PBDB is from Baltica  (Harper et al. , 2021). The 'BIME' recorded in the Upper Ordovician of Laurentia, i. e. , the Richmondian Invasion  (Stigall, 2010; Stigall et al.
Diachronous radiations of the different fossil groups After the compilation of datasets during the International Geoscience Programme (IGCP) 410, resulting in the publication of taxonomic richness curves of many Ordovician fossil groups  (Webby et al. , 2004a) , another IGCP project (IGCP 503) attempted to find the triggers of the radiations. In this context,  Servais et al. (2010)  plotted the diversity curves of different fossil groups and illustrated the divergence of the radiations of the individual groups during the Ordovician. Although there was no uniform technique for all groups, it is obvious that each fossil group provides a different biodiversification scenario: most fossil groups show diachronous radiations, with biodiversifications and peaks of diversity at different time intervals.
Constrained optimization (CONOP) of the three major groups used for biostratigraphy Fig. 3  illustrates the diversity curves of the three major fossil groups that are traditionally used for biostratigraphical correlation. These groups have been studied intensively, and their stratigraphical distribution has been carefully examined. Complete datasets have been compiled by the specialists of each group, allowing the application of the Constrained Optimization programme (CONOP,  Sadler, 2001; Sadler et al. , 2009). Goldman et al. (2020) (fig. 20. 14)  presented the 'taxon richness' trajectories of the three groups, that are redrawn here (Fig. 3 ). The conodont diversity curve is based on 3788 taxa from 1221 sections, that of the graptolites on 2291 taxa from 619 sections, and the chitinozoan curve was calculated from a database of 231 taxa from 1210 sections.
Diachronous radiations of fossil groups Most of the diversity analyses during the early Palaeozoic produced 'global' curves, i. e. , mixing all information from different palaeocontinents, of all fossil groups. These allowed some authors to see 'global' radiations, based on PBDB datasets, including a curve that is widely used today to explain the 'global' picture of the early Palaeozoic radiations, including the Cambrian 'Explosion' and the GOBE (e. g. ,  Kröger et al. , 2019, fig. 1; Rasmussen et al. , 2019, fig. 2; Stigall et al. (2020, fig. 1). However, it is important to see what is actually behind these curves, and what are the data that are used to produce these compilations. For this reason,  Harper et al. (2020)  had a closer look at the data from the different fossil groups, not only in the PBDB, but also of other fossil groups, that are not present in this database.
Additionally,  Harper et al. (2021)  dissected the 'global curve' into regional curves, in order to obtain the radiations on each continent. In the latter study, it became clear that the PBDB is not only biased, with a large majority of data from the western world, but also that the data from North America (palaeocontinent Laurentia) largely dominate the 'global' database, followed by the data from northern Europe (Baltica and Avalonia), with the 'global' PBDB curve reflecting actually the evolution of marine life during the early Palaeozoic of the 'western' world. Here, we review the biodiversity signals of the different fossil groups of the PBDB, based on the investigation of  Harper et al. (2020)  (Fig. 4 ). The data in the PBDB are for some groups very abundant (the data from the echinoderms are almost complete in the PBDB, and corresponding to the unpublished datasets of the specialists of the group), for others they are sporadic (trilobite and graptolite data, for example), whereas some other groups are so far totally absent in the dataset.
Among the groups that are not present in the PBDB are the palynomorphs, including the acritarchs (phytoplankton), the chitinozoans (zooplankton) and the scolecodonts (jaws of polychaete annelid worms). For a few groups, the presence of data in Cambrian Series 2 and the Miaolingian records the coverage for the Cambrian radiation in the PBDB: brachiopods, sponges, archaeocyaths, echinoderms, and trilobites are among the groups that are well represented. The dataset of the trilobites (Fig. 4F ) in the PBDB is not complete, in comparison to the datasets that remain partly unpublished; they are a very complex group, with changing life habitats and life modes, and several mass extinctions recorded  (Adrain, 2013). The absence of data in the Furongian separates the Cambrian and Ordovician biotas.
Diachronous radiations of fossil groups in the GBDB In a similar way as for the PBDB, the species richness curves generated by the GBDB also produce signals mixing all fossil groups integrated in the datasets. Fan et al. (2020)  produced a curve with the general trajectories of Palaeozoic species diversity  (Fan et al. , 2020, fig. 1A) , but also split these trajectories into that of ten major fossil groups: trilobites, graptolites, conodonts, cephalopods, anthozoans, foraminiferans, bivalves, crustaceans, brachiopods, and others  (Fan et al. , 2020, fig. 1B ). In the supplementary materials, the authors publish, most interestingly, the species-level diversity curves for the three marine evolutionary faunas  (Fan et al. , 2020, fig. S8 ), but also the curves of the ten major fossil groups separately  (Fan et al.
e. , exactly before the time interval when brachiopods evolve on other continents like Baltica or Laurentia. The 'GOBE' of Rasmussen et al. (2019) thus appears actually to be a peak of brachiopod diversity only recorded in the PBDB (see also  Harper et al. , 2021) , that cannot be confirmed by data in the GBDB. Cephalopods show a dramatic increase in species-level diversity at the base of the Middle Ordovician in the GBDB. The graptolite species richness curve from the GBDB is also very interesting, as it does not reflect entirely the patterns in the global curve (Fig. 3 ). The diversity of the acritarchs from the GBDB (Fig. 5 ) cannot be used for any wider scenarios, as the dataset in the GBDB  (Li et al. , 2008)  is far from being complete, in comparison with the global dataset  (Kroeck et al.
Potential sources of multiple 'events' Here we only provide a few examples, and the compilations are not complete, of diversity (species richness) curves of different fossil groups during the early Palaeozoic. The diversification trends, and the peaks of species (or genus) richness, are clearly diachronous between the different groups, but also from one dataset to another. It becomes obvious from this rapid assessment of the compilations in the PBDB, in the GBDB, and in other databases that are partly published separately (see compilations in  Webby et al. , 2004a, for example) , that every specialist of a fossil group may find an individual diversity trajectory for the group analysed, with specific peaks of diversity at particular intervals. On the other hand, palaeontologists from one continent see different diversification scenarios compared to their colleagues working on another (palaeo-) continent.
6G ). We also plot here the generally accepted global sea-level curve (Fig. 6H ). It is very important to note that, similar to the diversity curves, the different geochemical proxies, as well as the sea-level curve, are also based on different datasets, including numerous biases, and they often represent models that must be critically and carefully scrutinized. Evidently, it is beyond the scope of this paper to critically analyze all these models, or to numerically compare the proxies against the taxonomic richness curves, with sophisticated statistical cross correlations. Changing palaeoclimate was very often related to the early Palaeozoic radiation. Past climatic processes can be reflected indirectly in the composition of the specific geochemical proxies illustrated in Fig. 6. It is generally acknowledged that the climate cooled during the Ordovician (e.
Using the same line of evidence,  Zaffos et al. (2017)  confirmed the view of  Valentine and Moores (1972)  that plate tectonics regulate biodiversity, by using global databases to test an old model developed half a century ago. Zaffos et al. (2017)  observed a positive correlation between global biodiversity and continental fragmentation, indicating that, at least for the Mesozoic breakup of the supercontinent Pangaea, the continental fragmentation has exerted a first-order control on the long-term trajectory of Phanerozoic marine animal diversity. Similarly,  Roberts and Mannion (2019)  indicated that fluctuations in sea level play an important role in driving Phanerozoic biodiversity at timescales >50 myr. They suggest that long timescale processes (e. g. , plate kinematics) are the primary drivers of biodiversity, whereas the processes with significant variability at shorter intervals, such as glacioeustasy, continental uplift and erosion, volcanism, asteroid impact, may play a moderating role.
Conclusion 1. Even if the fossil record in the marine realm includes some phases of rapid diversity fluctuation, our review of biodiversity patterns and trends indicates that the early Palaeozoic accommodated a single long-term radiation, of which the currently available datasets record only a fraction. 2. The continental fragmentation after the breakup of the supercontinent Pannotia and ensuing continuous drifting, represents a part of a large-scale cycle that most probably exerted a first-order control on this long-term early Palaeozoic radiation. 3. The available palaeontological datasets are incomplete, and none is truly global. The PBDB, although including 'global' data, is mostly based on sources from North America and Europe, whereas the GBDB captures and analyses data mainly from the different continental blocks belonging to China.
The 'global' biodiversity curves are thus not truly global, but are most probably the sum of regional diversity and taxonomic trends. 4. The single long-term early Palaeozoic radiation has been partitioned, partly due to the absence of data in the fossil record from the upper Cambrian (the 'Furongian Biodiversity Gap'), into two different radiations, the Cambrian 'Explosion' and the Great Ordovician Biodiversification 'Event. ' However, it is impossible to identify a geological, ecological or extraterrestrial 'event' throughout the early Palaeozoic that altered profoundly the trajectory of the early Palaeozoic radiation. The Cambrian biodiversification was not a sudden burst ('explosion') of diversity, and the Ordovician biodiversification 'event' was not a real event. 5. Although defined by most authors as representing the first appearance of all animal phyla and of the different types of body plans -Baupläne, that took place during the late Precambrian and the earliest Cambrian, the Cambrian 'Explosion' has been restricted in the most recent datasets to specific intervals in Cambrian Series 2, presenting high recordings of taxa from the Cambrian Lagerstätten.