Celebrating dinosaurs: their behaviour, evolution, growth, and physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dinosaurs have attracted varying degrees of scientific and public interest since their initial description in 1824. Interest has steadily increased, however, since the late 1960s when the Dinosaur Renaissance began, and when the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences started to publish. Since then, there has been a feedback system (international in scope) promoting increased scientific activity and ever-increasing public attention. This has led to ever more dinosaur discoveries internationally; increased numbers of museums and parks displaying dinosaurs; more publications, blogs, and other media on dinosaurs; and (most importantly) increased numbers of people and institutions doing research on dinosaurs. About 30 new species of dinosaurs are now being described every year, adding to the more than 1000 species already known. Furthermore, it is now acknowledged by most biologists and palaeontologists that modern birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs, and that they are classified as part of the Dinosauria. Recognizing that there are more than 11 000 species of living dinosaurs has given us a better understanding of many aspects of the biology of nonavian dinosaurs. Along with technological improvements, this has revealed new—and often surprising—facts about their anatomy (bones, soft tissues, and even colours), interrelationships, biomechanics, growth and variation, ecology, physiology, behaviour, and extinction. In spite of the intensity of research over the last six decades, there is no indication that the discovery of new species and new facts about their biology is slowing down. It is quite clear that there is still a lot to be learned!
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".