Pedal Proportions of <i>Poposaurus gracilis</i>: Convergence and Divergence in the Feet of Archosaurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crocodile-line basal suchian Poposaurus gracilis had body proportions suggesting that it was an erect, bipedal form like many dinosaurs, prompting questions of whether its pedal proportions, and the shape of its footprint, would likewise "mimic" those of bipedal dinosaurs. We addressed these questions through a comparison of phalangeal, digital, and metatarsal proportions of Poposaurus with those of extinct and extant crocodile-line archosaurs, obligate or facultatively bipedal non-avian dinosaurs, and ground birds of several clades, as well as a comparison of the footprint reconstructed from the foot skeleton of Poposaurus with known early Mesozoic archosaurian ichnotaxa. Bivariate and multivariate analyses of phalangeal and digital dimensions showed numerous instances of convergence in pedal morphology among disparate archosaurian clades. Overall, the foot of Poposaurus is indeed more like that of bipedal dinosaurs than other archosaur groups, but is not exactly like the foot of any particular bipedal dinosaur clade. Poposaurus likely had a digitigrade stance, and its footprint shape could have resembled grallatorid ichnotaxa, unless digit I of the foot of Poposaurus commonly left an impression.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".