The promise of taphonomy as a nomothetic discipline: taphonomic bias in two dinosaur-bearing faunas in North America<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fossil record of dinosaurs is a rich, if biased, one with nearly complete skeletons, partial skeletons, and isolated parts found in diverse, well-studied faunal assemblages around the world. Among the recognized biases are the preferential preservation of large dinosaurs and the systematic underrepresentation of small dinosaurs. Such biases have been quantitatively described in the Upper Cretaceous (Campanian) Dinosaur Park Formation of Alberta, where large, nearly complete dinosaurs were found and described early in collecting history and small, very incomplete dinosaurs were found and described later. This pattern, apparently replicated in the Maastrichtian Hell Creek Formation of Montana, is so striking that it begs the question of whether this is a nomothetic principle for the preservation of dinosaur faunas elsewhere. We tested this hypothesis by analyzing the very well-studied dinosaur fauna of the Upper Jurassic (Kimmeridgian) Morrison Formation of the western United States. The Morrison Formation fails to show any correlation between body size and completeness, order of discovery, or order of description. Both large and small dinosaurs of the Morrison include highly complete as well as highly incomplete taxa, and both large and small dinosaurs were discovered and described early in collecting history as well as more recently. The differences in preservation between the Dinosaur Park Formation and the Morrison Formation are so striking that we posit a Dinosaur Park model of dinosaur fossil preservation and a Morrison model. Future study will show whether either or both represent durable nomothetic models for dinosaur fossil preservation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".