MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997525073 · doi:10.4202/app.2010.0055

Hands, Feet, and Behaviour in<i>Pinacosaurus</i>(Dinosauria: Ankylosauridae)

2011· article· en· W1997525073 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip J. Currie, Demchig Badamgarav, Eva B. Koppelhus, Robin L. Sissons, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Palaeontologica Polonica · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of Alberta
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsGeologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structure of the manus and pes has long been a source of confusion in ankylosaurs, owing to the imperfect preservation or complete lack of these parts of the skeletons in most specimens, and the fact that many species appear to have undergone a reduction in numbers of digits and phalanges. New specimens of Pinacosaurus from Alag Teeg in Mongolia confirm that the phalangeal formula of the manus is 2-3-3-3-2. However, there are only three toes in the pes, which has a phalangeal formula of X-3-3/4-3/4-X. Importantly, the number of phalanges in the third and fourth pedal digits can vary between either three or four per digit, even within the same specimen. The Alag Teeg site has yielded as many as a hundred skeletons of the ankylosaur Pinacosaurus, most of which were immature when they died. Each skeleton is preserved in an upright standing position, with the bones of the lower limbs often in articulation. The remainder of the skeleton, including the upper parts of the limbs, is generally disarticulated and somewhat scattered. Based on the presence of large numbers of juvenile Pinacosaurus specimens at Alag Teeg, as well as other Djadokhta-age sites (Ukhaa Tolgod in Mongolia, Bayan Mandahu in China), it seems juvenile Pinacosaurus were probably gregarious.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.192 · 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.

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

Citations40
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Palaeontologica PolonicaSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207