Revision of the status of Saurolophus (Hadrosauridae) from California, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The occurrence of Saurolophus from the Moreno Formation (late Maastrichtian) of California is investigated and an incomplete, poorly preserved, skull (LACM/CIT 2852) is described. The skull lacks the braincase (including the frontals) and much of the nasals, and the preserved portions are crushed or plastically deformed, which makes anatomical interpretations difficult. A preserved midline fragment of the conjoined nasals suggests that it lacked a gryposaur-like “Roman nose”, but the nature of the crest, if present, is impossible to determine with certainty. A phylogenetic analysis places this specimen as either the sister taxon of Saurolophus or as the sister taxon to a clade comprising Edmontosaurus and Anatotitan . There is no compelling morphological evidence to support the previous assignment of LACM/CIT 2852 to Saurolophus rather than to Edmontosaurus, and its poor preservation prevents positive assignment to any taxon below Hadrosaurinae indet. Given its geographic setting and morphological uncertainties, it is also possible that this specimen represents a separate taxon, but more material is needed to clarify the identity of the Moreno hadrosaurine. LACM/CIT 2852 does, however, provide evidence that Maastrichtian hadrosaurines ranged west of the Sierra Nevada magmatic arc, in an area where dinosaur diversity is poorly known.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".