A Comparison of the Jaw Mechanics in Hadrosaurid and Ceratopsid Dinosaurs Using Finite Element Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hadrosaurid and ceratopsid dentaries display traits that suggest divergent functions toward broadly similar diets of fibrous plants. Computed tomographic scans of dentaries of a lambeosaurine and a centrosaurine (Centrosaurus aptertus) were used to compare feeding function of these animals using finite element analysis (FEA). In the hadrosaur, mediolateral expansion of the dentary and elongation of the coronoid process of the surangular were optimally developed to withstand torsion associated with transverse-isognathous jaw occlusion. FEA results strongly suggest longitudinal rotation of the hadrosaurid mandible. Mediolaterally compressed mandibles and FEA stress for the ceratopsid are in compliance with purely isognathous jaw adduction, although palinal retraction during the powerstroke cannot be ruled out. The ceratopsid dentary is further reinforced by a longitudinal ridge on the lateral surface of that element. Surface texture indicating Sharpey's fibers within the ceratopsid coronoid process suggests greater bite force than in lambeosaurines. These findings corroborate previous interpretations and suggest complementary or alternative kinematics to maxillary pleurokinesis in hadrosaurs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".