MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310497808 · doi:10.1038/s42003-022-04119-9

A non-avian dinosaur with a streamlined body exhibits potential adaptations for swimming

2022· article· en· W4310497808 on OpenAlexaff
Sungjin Lee, Yuong‐Nam Lee, Philip J. Currie, Robin L. Sissons, Jinyoung Park, Su‐Hwan Kim, Ринчен Барсболд, Khishigjav Tsogtbaatar

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaWilli Hennig Society
KeywordsTheropodaBiologyCretaceousAnatomyAdaptation (eye)Rib cageZoologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Streamlining a body is a major adaptation for aquatic animals to move efficiently in the water. Whereas diving birds are well known to have streamlined bodies, such body shapes have not been documented in non-avian dinosaurs. It is primarily because most known non-avian theropods are terrestrial, barring a few exceptions. However, clear evidence of streamlined bodies is absent even in the purported semiaquatic groups. Here we report a new theropod, Natovenator polydontus gen. et sp. nov., from the Upper Cretaceous of Mongolia. The new specimen includes a well-preserved skeleton with several articulated dorsal ribs that are posterolaterally oriented to streamline the body as in diving birds. Additionally, the widely arched proximal rib shafts reflect a dorsoventrally compressed ribcage like aquatic reptiles. Its body shape suggests that Natovenator was a potentially capable swimming predator, and the streamlined body evolved independently in separate lineages of theropod dinosaurs.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations14
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207