Quantifying tooth variation within a single population of<i>Albertosaurus sarcophagus</i>(Theropoda: Tyrannosauridae) and implications for identifying isolated teeth of tyrannosauridsThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme<i>Albertosaurus</i>.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Documenting variation in theropod dinosaurs is usually hindered by the lack of a large sample size and specimens representing several ontogenetic stages. Here, variation within 140 disassociated and seven in situ tyrannosaur teeth from the Upper Cretaceous (lower Maastrichtian) monodominant Albertosaurus sarcophagus (Theropoda: Tyrannosauridae) bonebed is documented. This sample represents the largest data set of teeth from one population of A. sarcophagus containing both adult and juvenile specimens. Tooth variation was assessed using multivariate analyses (principal component, discriminant, and canonical variate analyses). Heterodonty in the teeth of A. sarcophagus contributes to the large amount of variation in the data set. Premaxillary teeth are significantly different from maxillary and dentary teeth, but there is no quantifiable difference between a priori identified maxillary and dentary teeth. Juvenile and adult teeth of A. sarcophagus show apparent quantitative differences that are size dependent on closer investigation, suggesting a cautious approach when interpreting multivariate analyses to identify novel tooth morphologies. Multivariate analyses on teeth of A. sarcophagus and published tooth data from other North American tyrannosaurid species reveals species-level clusters with little separation. The degree of separation among tooth clusters may reveal a phylogenetic signal in tyrannosaurid teeth.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".