MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366518142 · doi:10.1080/08912963.2023.2201929

A probable ornithopod egg from a historic collection of dinosaur eggs recovered from the Upper Cretaceous of Liaoning Province, China

2023· article· en· W4366518142 on OpenAlexaff
Caizhi Shen, Kohei Tanaka, Darla K. Zelenitsky, Chunling Gao, Fengjiao Zhang, Junchang Lü

Bibliographic record

VenueHistorical Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsCretaceousChinaTaxonCenomanianRange (aeronautics)GeographyPaleontologyArchaeologyZoologyMesozoicBiology

Abstract

Since the first discovery of dinosaur eggs announced by the American Museum of Natural History (central Asiatic expeditions to Mongolia) in 1923, these fossils became widely recognised from Mesozoic strata in Asia and elsewhere. In the 1920s, and actually before 1923, dinosaur eggs had been collected from another part of Asia, specifically Liaoning Province in northeastern China. From 1921 to the late 1920s, five eggs were collected from the Cenomanian Quantou Formation during construction, and thus represent an important historic collection as some of the earliest dinosaur eggs discovered in Asia. Here, we describe one egg from this collection and assign it to Paraspheroolithus irenensis, an egg taxon that likely belonged to hadrosaur dinosaurs. The egg is approximately 7 × 8 cm in diameter, with eggshell that displays typical spheroolithid microstructure and is just over a millimetre in thickness. Paraspheroolithus irenensis is shown to be the most widespread spheroolithid oospecies in China, and our comparative work extends its geographic range to northeastern most China. The Quantou Formation thus has yielded at least three spheroolithid oospecies, indicating the potential for a diversity of hadrosaur or related ornithopod species in the region at that time.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Paleontological description of a dinosaur egg; no research-on-research content.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

The work describes a dinosaur egg and its taxonomic significance, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Paleontological description of a dinosaur egg; object is fossil biology, not research practice.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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