Osteology and reassessment of <scp><i>Dineobellator notohesperus</i></scp>, a southern eudromaeosaur (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae: Eudromaeosauria) from the latest Cretaceous of New Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dromaeosaurids (Theropoda: Dromaeosauridae), a group of dynamic, swift predators, have a sparse fossil record, particularly at the end of the Cretaceous Period. The recently described Dineobellator notohesperus, consisting of a partial skeleton from the Upper Cretaceous (Maastrichtian) of New Mexico, is the only diagnostic dromaeosaurid to be recovered from the latest Cretaceous of the southwestern United States. Reinterpreted and newly described material include several caudal vertebrae, portions of the right radius and pubis, and an additional ungual, tentatively inferred to be from manual digit III. Unique features, particularly those of the humerus, unguals, and caudal vertebrae, distinguish D. notohesperus from other known dromaeosaurids. This material indicates different physical attributes among dromaeosaurids, such as use of the forearms, strength in the hands and feet, and mobility of the tail. Several bones in the holotype exhibit abnormal growth and are inferred to be pathologic features resulting from an injury or disease. Similar lengths of the humerus imply Dineobellator and Deinonychus were of similar size, at least regarding length and/or height, although the more gracile nature of the humerus implies Dineobellator was a more lightly built predator. A new phylogenetic analysis recovers D. notohesperus as a dromaeosaurid outside other previously known and named clades. Theropod composition of the Naashoibito Member theropod fauna is like those found in the more northern Late Cretaceous North American ecosystems. Differences in tooth morphologies among recovered theropod teeth from the Naashoibito Member also implies D. notohesperus was not the only dromaeosaurid present in its environment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".