MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213145577 · doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2022.105177

Ontogenetic dietary shifts in North American hadrosaurids (Dinosauria: Ornithischia)

2022· article· en· W4213145577 on OpenAlexaff
Taia Wyenberg-Henzler, R. Timothy Patterson, Jordan C. Mallon

Bibliographic record

VenueCretaceous Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Museum of NatureCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOntogenyAllometryBiologyJuvenileNicheSkullHerbivoreCretaceousEcologyBrain sizeZoologyAnatomyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontogenetic niche shifts, the phenomenon whereby animals change their resource use with growth, were probably widespread in dinosaurs, but most studies of duck-billed dinosaur ontogeny have so far focused mainly on the development of the cranial ornamentation. Here, we quantify allometry of 13 ecomorphological variables of the skull and examine tooth microwear in a sample of North American hadrosaurids to better understand their ecological functioning with growth. Our results indicate that, consistent with the Jarman-Bell principle relating body size to fibre intake and feeding selectivity, juvenile hadrosaurids were relatively more selective than their adult counterparts and subsisted on softer, low-growing browse cropped using lateral rotations of the neck. Chewing movements of the jaw probably did not differ greatly between growth stages. Our findings invite further investigation relating to cranial ontogenetic allometry in hadrosauromorphs more broadly, and to the possible role of ontogenetic niche shifts in the size structuring of Late Cretaceous herbivore communities.

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)0.000
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCretaceous ResearchSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207