Piecing Together Prehistoric Life: Scanning and Articulating Gorgosaurus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Skull bones of a Gorgosaurus Libratus was laser scanned in order to articulate the model into software and 3D print. The model had to be articulated due to some missing bone, making it unrealistic to put together. Using the scanned pieces we articulated the model making a skull of The Gorgosaurus Libratus. This detailed computer skull can be sent anywhere in the world, for anyone to study. These scans could also be used to find out how the Gorgosaurus Libratus bit down or determine the way these animals moved. Prior to laser scanning, a method known as Photogrammetry was used. This method involves taking photos of the model and processing the images on a computer, which slow down the process. Another way used to replicate bones was by making silicone molds. This could damage the bone which makes it a method used less often. Laser scanning is the fastest and safest method in order to scan a bone. After the bones were articulated on the computer they were sent to a 3D printer. Unfortunately, the printer beds could not hold the massive skull. Due to this, the bones were printed half size. In order to 3D print, the holes of the model had to be filled using another program. The holes were caused by the light of the laser scanner not being able to go into all the holes creating shadows that the laser scanner could not pick up. However, after the holes were filled some of the objects were still too big to fit on the printer bed. Therefore, some of the objects were cut in half to fit. The 3D printed models were then printed and assembled.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".