MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1854794405 · doi:10.1139/cjes-2014-0071

The first appearance of <i>Troodon</i> in the Upper Cretaceous site of Danek Bonebed, and a reevaluation of troodontid quantitative tooth morphotypes

2014· article· en· W1854794405 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Angélica Torices, Gregory F. Funston, Shannon T. Kraichy, Philip J. Currie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
FundersMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsCanyonGeologyPaleontologyHorseshoe (symbol)CretaceousTaxonGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The systematic position of the small theropod dinosaur Troodon has had a confusing history and has been identified at different times as a lizard, a pachycephalosaurid, and a coelurosaurid. Troodon is now most commonly considered as a sister taxon to Dromeaosauridae, within Maniraptora. This study records the first evidence of Troodon in the Danek bonebed, an organic-rich member of the upper Campanian Horseshoe Canyon Formation. A single tooth (UALVP 55489) was recovered during the 2012 dig season, and it is exceptionally well-preserved. Its discovery prompted a reevaluation of variation within troodontid teeth in Alberta; it is compared here with 110 troodontid teeth from the Dinosaur Park, Horseshoe Canyon, and Wapiti formations. The results show that no distinctive morphotypes can be separated, in contrast to the results of other studies. This suggests that either troodontid teeth are not sufficiently different for identifying different species or that only one troodontid taxon is present in the Campanian of Alberta.

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 score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207