Morphology and Histology of Lattice‐like Ossified Epaxial Tendons in<i>Psittacosaurus</i>(Dinosauria: Ceratopsia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Epaxial tendons play an important role in the study of the musculoskeletal system and locomotory style of dinosaurs. Although the ossified epaxial tendon lattice is fairly well known in Iguanodontoidea, only recently has knowledge of this complex been extended to ceratopsians. This study concerns the gross morphology and microstructure of the tendon lattice inPsittacosaurus, a basal ceratopsian. As in the neoceratopsianChasmosaurus, the ossified tendons ofPsittacosaurusform a three‐layered, lattice‐like structure. The microstructure of the tendons in large psittacosaur individuals retains an early stage of ossification, as in juvenile birds and nestling hadrosaurs, suggesting a slow developmental rate of ossification of the tendons in psittacosaur ontogeny. Comparative study indicates that a lattice‐like arrangement of three‐layered epaxial tendons is widely distributed in Cerapoda. This pattern also extends to Ankylosauria, implying a similar pattern of the epaxial muscles through the ornithischian clade. In addition, comparison with crocodiles implies that the different morphology of ossified tendons in dinosaurs may be associated with adaptive aspects of their paleobiology, not simply a side effect of skeletal ossification. In contrast to the short tendons in quadrupedalChasmosaurusandProtoceratops, the elongated tendons inPsittacosaurusmay be related to the bipedal locomotion characteristic of this taxon.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".