Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomic history of the Ceratopsia began in 1876 with the description of Monoclonius crassus Cope followed in 1889 by Triceratops horridus Marsh. After a peak of discovery and description in the 1910s and 1920s resulting from the Canadian dinosaur rush in the province of Alberta and the Central Asiatic Expeditions to Mongolia of the American Museum of Natural History, the study of ceratopsians declined to a low level until the 1990s, when discoveries in China, Montana, Utah, Alberta, and elsewhere, abetted by increased biostratigraphic and phylogenetic precision, led to an unprecedented resurgence of activity. Even Richard C. Fox, along with colleagues from Peking University, joined in the activity, by naming Psittacosaurus lujiatunensis. To place the activity in historical perspective, half of all known ceratopsians have been described since 2003. Despite important finds of basal ceratopsians in China, Mongolia, and Korea, North America continues to dominate ceratopsian, especially ceratopsid, diversity.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".