Theropod guild structure and the tyrannosaurid niche assimilation hypothesis: implications for predatory dinosaur macroecology and ontogeny in later Late Cretaceous Asiamerica<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Well-sampled dinosaur communities from the Jurassic through the early Late Cretaceous show greater taxonomic diversity among larger (>50 kg) theropod taxa than communities of the Campano-Maastrichtian, particularly to those of eastern/central Asia and Laramidia. The large carnivore guilds in Asiamerican assemblages are monopolized by tyrannosaurids, with adult medium-sized (50–500 kg) predators rare or absent. In contrast, various clades of theropods are found to occupy these body sizes in earlier faunas, including early tyrannosauroids. Assemblages with “missing middle-sized” predators are not found to have correspondingly sparser diversity of potential prey species recorded in these same faunas. The “missing middle-sized” niches in the theropod guilds of Late Cretaceous Laramidia and Asia may have been assimilated by juvenile and subadults of tyrannosaurid species, functionally distinct from their adult ecomorphologies. It is speculated that if tyrannosaurids assimilated the niches previously occupied by mid-sized theropod predators, we would expect the evolution of distinct transitions in morphology and possibly the delay of the achievement of somatic maturity in species of this taxon.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".