Size-mediated competition and community structure in a Late Cretaceous herbivorous dinosaur assemblage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been argued that, throughout the Mesozoic, the immature growth forms of megaherbivorous dinosaurs competitively excluded small herbivorous dinosaur species, leading to the left-skewed species richness-body mass distributions of their fossil assemblages. By corollary, where large and small herbivores coexisted over a geologically significant period of time, they must have exhibited niche partitioning. We use multivariate ecomorphological analysis of the Late Cretaceous ornithischian dinosaur assemblage of North America to examine this prediction. Our results indicate good ecomorphological separation of most, but not all, species at small body size, although more work is required to demonstrate that these patterns were adaptive. Calculation of browse profiles using corrected abundance data and bracketed estimates of energy requirements suggests that immature megaherbivores – most particularly hadrosaurids – outstripped coexisting small ornithischian species in their control of the resource base.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it