Histologic growth dynamic study of <i>Edmontosaurus regalis</i> (Dinosauria: Hadrosauridae) from a bonebed assemblage of the Upper Cretaceous Horseshoe Canyon Formation, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Danek Bonebed (Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) is a monodominant Edmontosaurus regalis assemblage of the upper Campanian (Upper Cretaceous) Horseshoe Canyon Formation. Bone histology of humeri and femora are used in this paper to test hypotheses about the growth dynamics and palaeobiology of Edmontosaurus. The high number of elements collected from the Danek Bonebed allow for an expansion of the multi-element histological record for hadrosaurs. Results indicate that Edmontosaurus had a growth trajectory similar to other large-bodied dinosaurs and reached the onset of somatic maturity at about 10–15 years of age; however, even the largest elements to preserve lines of arrested growth do not have external fundamental systems. This timing of the onset of somatic maturity agrees with the estimated body size of Edmontosaurus relative to other dinosaurs for which life-history data are available. Vascularity patterns support the hypothesis that edmontosaurs preserved at the Danek Bonebed were not subject to the same extreme seasonal environmental shifts as congenerics preserved at higher latitudes, further supporting overwintering behaviour in the latter.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".