A taxonomic assessment of the type series of <i>Albertosaurus sarcophagus</i> and the identity of Tyrannosauridae (Dinosauria, Coelurosauria) in the <i>Albertosaurus</i> bonebed from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Campanian–Maastrichtian, Late Cretaceous)This article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme <i>Albertosaurus</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The type series of Albertosaurus sarcophagus , consisting of a type (CMN 5600) and a paratype (CMN 5601) is inadequately established, since it has not been demonstrated that the specimens represent the same taxon. This problem has arisen because the original diagnostic characters have a wider distribution among Tyrannosauridae or they are in error, and both specimens consist of incomplete and damaged skulls. The type series was studied to test for the presence of diagnostic characters in the type specimen and, if so, to provide a rationale for referring the paratype to the taxon. Of the bones shared between the skulls, only five could be compared. One character, the enlarged posterior pneumatic recess of the palatine, is shared between the two specimens; this condition differs from the situation seen in other tyrannosaurids. This character provided the rationale for assessing the identity of the specimens collected from the Albertosaurus bonebed, from which one palatine was collected that exhibits the diagnostic recess. Isolated cranial bones from the bonebed were compared with those preserved in the type series to evaluate their referral to A. sarcophagus ; additional characters shared between the type series and the specimens from the bonebed were identified in the maxilla, lacrimal, and palatine. This evidence supports the hypothesis that A. sarcophagus is the tyrannosaurid preserved in the bonebed. A hypothesis of the principal growth changes in the skull in A. sarcophagus, which includes the type series and bonebed material, is proposed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".