Olfactory acuity in theropods: palaeobiological and evolutionary implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research presents the first quantitative evaluation of the olfactory acuity in extinct theropod dinosaurs. Olfactory ratios (i.e. the ratio of the greatest diameter of the olfactory bulb to the greatest diameter of the cerebral hemisphere) are analysed in order to infer the olfactory acuity and behavioural traits in theropods, as well as to identify phylogenetic trends in olfaction within Theropoda. A phylogenetically corrected regression of olfactory ratio to body mass reveals that, relative to predicted values, the olfactory bulbs of (i) tyrannosaurids and dromaeosaurids are significantly larger, (ii) ornithomimosaurs and oviraptorids are significantly smaller, and (iii) ceratosaurians, allosauroids, basal tyrannosauroids, troodontids and basal birds are within the 95% CI. Relative to other theropods, olfactory acuity was high in tyrannosaurids and dromaeosaurids and therefore olfaction would have played an important role in their ecology, possibly for activities in low-light conditions, locating food, or for navigation within large home ranges. Olfactory acuity was the lowest in ornithomimosaurs and oviraptorids, suggesting a reduced reliance on olfaction and perhaps an omnivorous diet in these theropods. Phylogenetic trends in olfaction among theropods reveal that olfactory acuity did not decrease in the ancestry of birds, as troodontids, dromaeosaurids and primitive birds possessed typical or high olfactory acuity. Thus, the sense of smell must have remained important in primitive birds and its presumed decrease associated with the increased importance of sight did not occur until later among more derived birds.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".