New titanosauriform (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) specimens from the Upper Cretaceous Daijiaping Formation of southern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Titanosauriform sauropod dinosaurs were once considered rare in the Upper Cretaceous of Asia, but a number of titanosauriforms from this stratigraphic interval have been discovered in China in recent years. In fact, all adequately known Cretaceous Asian sauropods are titanosauriforms, but only a few have been well studied, lending significance to any new anatomical information that can be extracted from Asia's Cretaceous sauropod record. Here we give a detailed description of some titanosauriform bones recovered recently from the Upper Cretaceous Daijiaping Formation of Tianyuan County, Zhuzhou City, Hunan Province, southern China. The occurrence of this material in Hunan increases the known geographic range of titanosauriforms in eastern Asia. Although all of the specimens discussed in this paper can be assigned to Titanosauriformes at least tentatively, some bones display a limited number of features that are more typical of basal sauropods and/or derived diplodocoids, suggesting complex patterns of character evolution within Neosauropoda.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".