MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121659793 · doi:10.1671/039.029.0405

A redescription of the ankylosaurid dinosaur <i>Dyoplosaurus acutosquameus</i> Parks, 1924 (Ornithischia: Ankylosauria) and a revision of the genus

2009· article· en· W2121659793 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria M. Arbour, Michael E. Burns, Robin L. Sissons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Vertebrate Paleontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDinosaur Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsPostcraniaHolotypeGenusQuadrate boneAnatomySkullBiologyPaleontologyTaxonZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The holotype of Dyoplosaurus acutosquameus Parks, 1924 (=Euoplocephalus tutus Lambe, 1910), represents one of the most complete ankylosaurid specimens collected to date. It consists of a partial skull roof, four mandible fragments with two teeth in situ, portions of postcranial armor (some in situ), skin impressions, articulated post-thoracic vertebrae, ten partial thoracic ribs, a partial left ilium, both ischia, and tail club, and associated right radius, left metacarpal IV, femur, tibia, fibula, and pes. We provide a detailed redescription of this material as well as comparisons with other ankylosaurid specimens referred to E. tutus. The synonymy of the genus with Euoplocephalus is not supported, and Dyoplosaurus is a valid taxon. It is possible that the fragmentary nature of the holotype of Euoplocephalus leads to the inference that the diversity of Late Cretaceous North American ankylosaurids is lower than it actually is. As such, it might be necessary to look beyond traditional cranial characters in order to accurately appraise the number and nature of various ankylosaurid taxa.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Vertebrate PaleontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207