MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810007220 · doi:10.18435/vamp29283

Positional Variation in Pedal Ungulas of North American Ornithomimids (Dinosauria, Theropoda): A Response to Brownstein (2017)

2018· article· en· W2810007220 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Bradley McFeeters, Michael J. Ryan, Thomas M. Cullen

Bibliographic record

VenueVertebrate Anatomy Morphology Palaeontology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheropodaTaxonPaleontologyVariation (astronomy)CretaceousCanyonBiologyCladeGeologyZoologyPhylogenetic treeGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positional variation is documented in ornithomimid pedal unguals from the Dinosaur Park and Horseshoe Canyon Formations of Alberta, Canada, and characters for identifying the position of isolated ornithomimid pedal unguals are discussed. Ungual morphology has been used recently to argue for the coexistence of two distinct ornithomimosaurs, a basal taxon and distinctly more derived taxon, in the Early Cretaceous Arundel Clay of Maryland, USA. However, these conclusions are based on misconceptions of the morphology and positional variability of ornithomimosaur unguals. Some characters previously cited as diagnostic of ornithomimosaur unguals are not actually observed in this clade, or are more homoplastically distributed among theropods. Other characters proposed to distinguish between the two pedal ungual morphs in the Arundel Clay material are shown in the Albertan ornithomimid material to consistently distinguish the different ungual positions within the pes of one individual. Claims of multiple distinct ornithomimosaur taxa in the Arundel Clay are premature, as the two pedal ungual morphotypes more likely represent positional variation in a single 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.272

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVertebrate Anatomy Morphology PalaeontologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207