“Dragons” on the landscape: Modeling the abundance of large carnivorous dinosaurs of the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation (USA) and the Upper Cretaceous Dinosaur Park Formation (Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counts of the number of skeletal specimens of "adult" megaherbivores and large theropods from the Morrison and Dinosaur Park formations-if not biased by taphonomic artifacts-suggest that the big meat-eaters were more abundant, relative to the number of big plant-eaters, than one would expect on the basis of the relative abundance of large carnivores and herbivores in modern mammalian faunas. Models of megaherbivore population density (number of individuals per square kilometer) that attempt to take into account ecosystem productivity, the size structure of megaherbivore populations, and individual megaherbivore energy requirements, when combined with values of the large theropod/megaherbivore abundance ratio, suggest that large theropods may have been more abundant on the landscape than estimates extrapolated from the population density versus body mass relationship of mammalian carnivores. Models of the meat production of megaherbivore populations and the meat requirements of "adult" large theropods suggest that herbivore productivity would have been insufficient to support the associated number of individuals of "adult" large theropods, unless the herbivore production/biomass ratio was substantially higher, and/or the large theropod meat requirement markedly lower, than expectations based on modern mammals. Alternatively, or in addition to one or both of these other factors, large theropods likely included dinosaurs other than megaherbivores as significant components of their diet.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".