Allometric growth in tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Upper Cretaceous of North America and Asia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many tyrannosaurid skeletons have been collected in Canada, the United States, and Mongolia. These fossils tend to represent mature individuals, but juveniles are also known. Skeletons of five genera of tyrannosaurids representing two distinct clades (albertosaurines and tyrannosaurines) were measured, and bivariate analysis was done on 85 dimensions. Allometric differences among mature specimens of different species are shown to be trivial when compared with the allometric differences associated with growth. Nevertheless, albertosaurines tend to be more lightly built than tyrannosaurines. When compared with a tyrannosaurine of the same absolute size, albertosaurines had slightly shorter, lower skulls, shorter ilia, longer tibiae, longer metatarsals, and longer toes. The arms of albertosaurines and tyrannosaurines are the same size, with the exception of Tarbosaurus, which has shorter front limb elements. Tooth counts show individual and interspecific variation, but there is no evidence that tooth numbers are controlled by the size or age of an animal. Dinotyrannus, Jenghizkhan, Maleevosaurus, Shanshanosaurus, Stygivenator, and possibly Nanotyrannus have proportions that suggest they are ontogenetic stages of either Tarbosaurus or Tyrannosaurus.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it