Hadrosaurid (<i>Edmontosaurus</i>) bonebeds from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Horsethief Member) at Drumheller, Alberta, Canada: geology, preliminary taphonomy, and significance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three monodominant hadrosaurid bonebeds in the Horsethief Member of the Horseshoe Canyon Formation (uppermost Campanian) in southern Alberta, Canada, are documented. Each bonebed is hosted by a decimetre-thick deposit of poorly sorted and graded organic-fragment-rich mudstone. These fossil deposits are interpreted as having been carried and deposited by debris flows or hyperconcentrated mass sediment flows initiated by overbank flooding from local channels. Each bonebed is dominated (>50% of identifiable elements) by the disarticulated to occasionally associated remains of hadrosaurine hadrosaurids, inferred to be Edmontosaurus regalis. The majority of hadrosaurid elements at two of the sites (Bleriot Ferry and Prehistoric Park) are from large, presumably adult-sized individuals, whereas the majority of elements from the Fox Coulee site are from subadults and juveniles. Fossil elements from all the sites exhibit similar taphonomic signatures suggestive of a high degree of biostratinomic modification including: (i) thorough disarticulation of carcasses, (ii) a large amount of breakage, (iii) modest amounts of size sorting, and (iv) minimum to modest occurrences of abrasion, and scratch and tooth marks. These signatures indicate that carcasses were exposed for significant amounts of time on the floodplain, where they rotted, were scavenged and trampled, and were exposed to moving water prior to final burial. The size of each bonebed together with the density of bones suggest that the biocoenoses comprised large groups of hadrosaurids, and bone size distributions suggest the possibility of age-segregated populations. The monodominant nature of the assemblages combined with homogenous taphonomic signatures within and between sites suggests that these bonebed assemblages are best interpreted as the result of mass kills rather than attrition, with recurring tropical storm-induced coastal-plain flooding postulated as a likely mechanism for what killed and eventually buried these dinosaurs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".