MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206329585 · doi:10.1093/zoolinnean/zlab120

The record of<i>Torosaurus</i>(Ornithischia: Ceratopsidae) in Canada and its taxonomic implications

2021· article· en· W4206329585 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jordan C. Mallon, Robert B. Holmes, Emily L. Bamforth, Dirk Schumann

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsFibics (Canada)University of AlbertaCanadian Museum of NatureCarleton UniversityRoyal Saskatchewan MuseumDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostcraniaBiologyGenusGenealogyTaxonomy (biology)Range (aeronautics)ZoologyEvolutionary biologyPaleontologyHistoryTaxon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The horned dinosaur genus Torosaurus has a challenging history, relating both to its geographic distribution and taxonomy. Whereas Torosaurus has been reported from Upper Maastrichtian deposits in Canada, which would mark the northernmost range of the genus, recent work has questioned the generic identity of the implicated material, which primarily consists of a pair of cranial frills. Perhaps more problematically, the validity of the genus itself has been a subject of recent debate, with some arguing that Torosaurus is simply a skeletally mature growth form of the contemporaneous Triceratops. In this study, we describe and illustrate the relevant frill material from Canada, and determine that it is most plausibly attributable to the Torosaurus morph. Moreover, we apply for the first time osteohistological sampling to some postcranial material associated with one of the frills, and find that the animal was still growing at the time of death. This finding, in addition to other considerations presented here, leads us to conclude that Torosaurus is a valid genus, and is not simply a mature growth form of Triceratops.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.176 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207