MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007893635 · doi:10.1139/e01-073

The paleoenvironment of<i>Tyrannosaurus rex</i>from southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada

2002· article· en· W2007893635 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
E. E. McIver

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFaunaGeologyDeciduousVegetation (pathology)PaleontologyPaleobotanyMacrofossilFrost (temperature)LatitudeEcologyBiologyHolocene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recovery of identifiable plant remains intimately associated with a skeleton of Tyrannosaurus rex in southwestern Saskatchewan, Canada, provides the basis for interpreting the latest Maastrichtian (65.5–65 Ma) paleoenvironment of the region. Fossil plants from the site are described, and fruits formerly known as Aesculus antiquus Dawson or Ficus ceratops Knowlton are transferred to a new taxon, Spinifructus antiquus (Dawson) comb. nov. Study of the sediments of the Frenchman Formation that host the bones and plants, in combination with analysis of the plants, indicates that the regional climate was mesothermal and without winter frost, but with seasonal drought. The T. rex is believed to have roamed a broad river valley abundantly vegetated by a largely deciduous flora. The deciduous nature of the Saskatchewan paleovegetation, interpreted as a response to low winter light levels at high latitude, contrasts strongly with the contemporaneous vegetation of a few degrees latitude further south and leads to questions about how a dinosaur fauna survived in a region where the bulk of the vegetation entered an extended period of dormancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations32
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207