Protracted growth impedes the detection of sexual dimorphism in non‐avian dinosaurs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Evidence for sexual dimorphism is extremely limited in the non‐avian dinosaurs despite their high diversity and disparity, and despite the fact that dimorphism is very common in vertebrate lineages of all kinds. Using body‐size data from bothAlligator mississippiensisandRhea americana, which phylogenetically bracket the dinosaurs, we demonstrate that even when there is strong dimorphism in a species, random sampling of populations of individuals characterized by sustained periods of growth (as in the alligator and most dinosaurs) can result in the loss of this signal. Dimorphism may be common in fossil taxa but very hard to detect without ontogenetic age control and large sample sizes, both of which are hampered by the limitations of the fossil record. Signal detection may be further hindered by TypeIIIsurvivorship, whereby increased mortality among the young favours the likelihood that they will be sampled (unless predation or taphonomic bias against small size acts against this). These, and other considerations relating to behaviour and ecology, provide powerful reasons to suggest that sexual dimorphism in dinosaurs may be very difficult to detect in almost all currently available samples. Similar issues are likely also to be applicable to many fossil reptiles, or animals more generally.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".