Testing size–frequency distributions as a method of ontogenetic aging: a life-history assessment of hadrosaurid dinosaurs from the Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, Canada, with implications for hadrosaurid paleoecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Hadrosaurid dinosaurs, the dominant large-bodied terrestrial herbivores in most Laurasian Late Cretaceous ecosystems, have an exceptional fossil record consisting of many species known from partial ontogenetic series, making them an ideal clade with which to conduct life-history studies. Previous research considered the Dinosaur Park Formation (DPF) of Alberta as an attritional, or time-averaged, sample and interpreted size–frequency distribution of long bones collected from the DPF with three size classes to suggest that hadrosaurids from the DPF attained near-asymptotic body size in under 3 years. This conflicted with previously published osteohistological estimates of 6+ years for penecontemporaneous hadrosaurids from the Two Medicine Formation (TMF) of Montana, suggesting either extreme variation in hadrosaurid growth rates or that size–frequency distributions and/or osteohistology and growth modeling inaccurately estimate ontogenetic age. We tested the validity of the previously proposed size–age relationship of hadrosaurids from the DPF by significantly increasing sample size and combining data from size–frequency distributions and osteohistology across multiple long-bone elements. The newly constructed size–frequency distributions typically reveal four relatively distinct size–frequency peaks that, when integrated with the osteohistological data, aligned with growth marks. The yearling size class was heavily underrepresented in the size–frequency distribution. If not due to preservation, this suggests that either juvenile (<2 years of age) hadrosaurids from the DPF had increased survivorship following an initially high nestling mortality rate or that yearlings were segregated from adults. A growth-curve analysis revealed asymptotic body size was attained in approximately 7 years, which is consistent with hadrosaurids from the TMF. The data suggest size–frequency distributions of attritional samples underestimate age and overestimate growth rates, but when paired with osteohistology can provide unique life-history insights.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".