The significance of the theropod collections of the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology to our understanding of Late Cretaceous theropod diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Significant specimens of theropod dinosaurs were part of the collections that were transferred to the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology when it split off from the Provincial Museum of Alberta in 1981. Collecting activity of the institution increased dramatically in the period leading up to the opening of the building and displays in 1985, and resulted in the recovery and preparation of many fine theropod skeletons. New specimens have been added to the collection every year since the museum opened. Several (mostly small) taxa are only represented by isolated bones, partial skeletons, and (or) teeth. Theropod specimens also include footprints, coprolites, eggs, and feathers in amber. Although theropods are relatively rare in comparison with herbivorous dinosaurs, the Tyrrell has managed to build one of the finest research collections of Late Cretaceous forms. Thirty-seven species of theropods in the Tyrrell are currently accepted as being valid, of which 30 are from the Upper Cretaceous deposits 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".