Mammalian tooth marks on the bones of dinosaurs and other Late Cretaceous vertebrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: We describe bones from the Late Cretaceous of Alberta – including bones of large dinosaurs, a femur from the aquatic reptile Champsosaurus, and a dentary from the marsupial Eodelphis– that bear tooth marks made by animals with opposing pairs of teeth. Of the animals known from the Late Cretaceous of North America, only mammals are capable of making such tooth marks. In particular, multituberculates, which have paired upper and lower incisors, are the most likely candidates for the makers of these traces. The traces described here represent the oldest known mammalian tooth marks. Although it is possible that some of these tooth marks represent feeding traces, the tooth marks often penetrate deep into the dense cortices of the bone. This raises the possibility that, much as extant mammals gnaw bone and antler, some Cretaceous mammals may have consumed the bones of dinosaurs and other vertebrates as a source of minerals. However, none of the tooth marks described here resemble the extensive gnaw traces produced by Cenozoic multituberculates or rodents. This suggests that specialized gnawing forms may have been rare or absent in the Late Cretaceous of North America.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".