Prosauropod dinosaurs and iguanas: speculations on the diets of extinct reptiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction A thorough knowledge of extant taxa is required when attempting paleobiological interpretations of extinct animals (Lauder 1995; Witmer 1995). Skeletal material, though informative, can provide only a limited amount of information on soft-tissue and behavioral characteristics. It is not possible to identify with certainty the actual diet of any extinct animal because we cannot observe the animal feeding. Fossilized gut contents (enterolites) and feces (coprolites) may provide some dietary information, but convincing enterolites are rare and coprolites are almost never associated with the animal that produced them. In some cases, direct comparison of the feeding adaptations of extinct taxa with closely related extant forms (‘Extant Phylogenetic Bracket’ approach sensu Witmer 1995) is possible, allowing these interpretations to be made with some confidence (e.g., between extinct and extant mammals). Some groups, however, have no present-day representatives for relevant comparison. For example, study of extant birds and crocodilians provides only limited insight into the paleobiology of non-avian dinosaurs. In cases where the phylogenetic approach to assessing function in extinct organisms is not feasible, there is a tendency to rely on a historical biomechanical modeling (Weishampel 1995). Such modeling is often based on the identification and study of suitable extant analogues. The choice of extant taxa for comparison, however, is often limited, and many studies are forced to utilize animal models that may be distantly related to the extinct taxon under consideration. This chapter deals with one such model — the relationship between tooth form and diet in herbivorous reptiles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".