MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4375864533 · doi:10.1101/2023.05.04.539484

Diving dinosaurs? Caveats on the use of bone compactness and pFDA for inferring lifestyle

2023· preprint· en· W4375864533 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Myhrvold, Paul C. Sereno, Stephanie L. Baumgart, Daniel Vidal, Frank E. Fish, Donald M. Henderson, Evan T. Saitta

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Tyrrell Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaxonCategorizationCompact spaceInterpretation (philosophy)Compact boneBiologyEcologyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measures of bone compactness in amniote tetrapods of varying lifestyle were used to infer that two spinosaurid dinosaurs ( Spinosaurus aegyptiacus , Baryonyx walkeri ) were diving “subaqueous foragers,” whereas a third spinosaurid ( Suchomimus tenerensis ) and other sampled nonavian dinosaurs were non-diving terrestrial feeders entering water only as waders. We outline shortcomings in this analysis that involve bone compactness sampling and measurement, lifestyle categorization, the inclusion and exclusion of taxa in the dataset, and flawed statistical methods and inferences. These many shortcomings undermine the evidence used to conclude that two spinosaurid taxa were avid divers. Bone compactness indices remain a valuable tool for interpretation of lifestyle in extinct species when based on sound dataset composition, robust statistical analysis, and consilience with evidence from functional, biomechanical, or paleoenvironmental considerations.

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)0.141
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.360
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1410.360
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology→French-language works237,207→