Baby tyrannosaurid bones and teeth from the Late Cretaceous of western North America<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tyrannosaurids were the apex predators of Late Cretaceous Laurasia and their status as dominant carnivores has garnered considerable interest since their discovery, both in the popular and scientific realms. As a result, they are well studied and much is known of their anatomy, diversity, growth, and evolution. In contrast, little is known of the earliest stages of tyrannosaurid development. Tyrannosaurid eggs and embryos remain elusive, and juvenile specimens — although known — are rare. Perinatal tyrannosaurid bones and teeth from the Campanian–Maastrichtian of western North America provide the first window into this critical period of the life of a tyrannosaurid. An embryonic dentary (cf. Daspletosaurus) from the Two Medicine Formation of Montana, measuring just 3 cm long, already exhibits distinctive tyrannosaurine characters like a “chin” and a deep Meckelian groove, and reveals the earliest stages of tooth development. When considered together with a remarkably large embryonic ungual from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation of Alberta, minimum hatchling size of tyrannosaurids can be roughly estimated. A perinatal premaxillary tooth from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation likely pertains to Albertosaurus sarcophagus and it shows small denticles on the carinae. This tooth shows that the hallmark characters that distinguish tyrannosaurids from other theropods were present early in life and raises questions about the ontogenetic variability of serrations in premaxillary teeth. Sedimentary and taphonomic similarities in the sites that produced the embryonic bones provide clues to the nesting habits of tyrannosaurids and may help to refine the prospecting search image in the continued quest to discover baby tyrannosaurids.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".