Rebuttal of McFeeters, Ryan and Cullen, 2018, ‘Positional variation in pedal unguals of North American ornithomimids (Dinosauria, Theropoda): A Response to Brownstein (2017)’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Arundel Clay of Maryland is among the only Early Cretaceous terrestrial units known from eastern North America. Research on some theropod dinosaur bones from this layer has indicated the presence of two ornithomimosaur taxa in the assemblage. However, a recent paper discussed issues with the definite assignment of any of these unguals to Ornithomimosauria and suggested that morphological differences originally interpreted to be indicative of the presence of two ornithomimosaurs could be explained by positional variation. Here, I show that substantial evidence persists for the presence of two ornithomimosaurs in the Arundel Clay assemblage, even considering the recent description of positional variation in ornithomimosaur pedal unguals. Furthermore, the argument against the confident assignment of these unguals to ornithomimosaurs is shown to be based on oversimplified comparisons that do not take into account the combination of features in the Arundel specimens that allow for their assignment to that clade. Although several small points made in the initial paper describing the Arundel specimens are incorrect or unsubstantiated, the differences between the Maryland unguals are outside the spectrum of positional variation and are indicative of the presence of two ornithomimosaurs in the Arundel Clay assemblage.
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 | 0.010 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".