Macroevolutionary trends in the Dinosauria: Cope's rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cope's rule is the tendency for body size to increase over time along a lineage. A set of 65 phylogenetically independent comparisons, between earlier and later genera, show that Cope's rule applied in dinosaurs: later genera were on average about 25% longer than the related earlier genera to which they were compared. The tendency for size to increase was not restricted to a particular clade within the group, nor to a particular time within its history. Small lineages were more likely to increase in size, and large lineages more likely to decrease: this pattern may indicate an intermediate optimum body size, but can also be explained as an artefact of data error. The rate of size increase estimated from the phylogenetic comparisons is significantly higher than the rate seen across the fauna as a whole. This difference could indicate that within-lineage selection for larger size was opposed by clade selection favouring smaller size, but data limitations mean that alternative explanations (which we discuss) cannot be excluded. We discuss ways of unlocking the full potential usefulness of phylogenies for studying the dynamics of evolutionary trends.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".