A buoyancy, balance and stability challenge to the hypothesis of a semi-aquatic <i>Spinosaurus</i> Stromer, 1915 (Dinosauria: Theropoda)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent interpretation of the fossil remains of the enigmatic, large predatory dinosaur Spinosaurus aegyptiacus Stromer 1915 proposed that it was specially adapted for a semi-aquatic mode of life—a first for any predatory dinosaur. To test some aspects of this suggestion, a three-dimensional, digital model of the animal that incorporates regional density variations, lungs and air sacs was generated, and the flotation potential of the model was investigated using specially written software. It was found that Spinosaurus would have been able to float with its head clear of the water surface, although it was laterally unstable and would tend to roll onto its side. Similarly detailed models of another spinosaurid Baryonyx ( Suchomimus ) tenerensis Sereno et al. 1998, along with models of the more distantly related Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn 1905, Allosaurus fragilis Marsh 1877, Struthiomimus altus Lambe 1902, and Coelophysis bauri Cope 1887 were also able to float in positions that enabled the animals to breathe freely, showing that there is nothing exceptional about a floating Spinosaurus . Validation of the modelling methods was done with floated models of an alligator and an emperor penguin. The software also showed that the center of mass of Spinosaurus was much closer to the hips than previously estimated, similar to that observed in other theropods, implying that this dinosaur would still have been a competent walker on land. With its pneumatised skeleton and a system of air sacs (modelled after birds), the Spinosaurus model was found to be unsinkable, even with its lungs deflated by 75%, and this would greatly hinder a semi-aquatic, pursuit predator. The conclusion is that Spinosaurus may have been specialized for a shoreline or shallow water mode of life, but would still have been a competent terrestrial animal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".