MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The first complete description of the holotype of Brachylophosaurus canadensis Sternberg, 1953 (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) with comments on intraspecific variation

2010· article· en· W1951488084 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robin S. Cuthbertson, Robert B. Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeAnatomyBiologyForamenQuadrate boneTheropodaVomerCrestMandible (arthropod mouthpart)PaleontologyCretaceousTaxonomy (biology)ZoologyGenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The holotype of Brachylophosaurus canadensis was collected by C.M. Sternberg in 1936 from the Oldman Formation (Upper Cretaceous) of Alberta, Canada, with a brief description focusing on the cranium following in 1953. A re-description of the holotype skeleton confirms its position as a hadrosaurine dinosaur exhibiting the following unique combination of characters: paddle-like solid nasal crest; posteriorly elongated prefrontal; only the anterior tip of the lacrimal contacting maxilla; extremely elongated anterior maxillary process; and a quadratojugal with a noncrescentic posterior margin variably forming a paraquadratic foramen with the quadrate. Comparison of the holotype with other specimens assigned to the taxon reveals numerous morphological differences. These variable features include the presence/absence of an accessory premaxillary foramen, the number of maxillary/dentary vertical tooth rows, the number of functional teeth per tooth row contributing to the dental occlusal surface, the bones forming the mandibular glenoid, the presence/absence of a nasal foramen, nasal crest morphology, the number of cervical vertebrae, and axis morphology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.682

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations35
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207