Variability of bone microstructure and growth lines in the evolution of troodontids and dromaeosaurids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Since the beginning of the 1990s, palaeontologists have been interested in understanding biological processes recorded within the bone microstructure of deinonychosaurian theropods, the group comprising Troodontidae and Dromaeosauridae. Several studies were published on this subject, and the growing database requires the first revision of used terminology and older interpretations. Furthermore, a platform correlating the developmental characters of all investigated taxa is missing. Hence, we lack a perspective to evaluate the potential of deinonychosaurian osteohistology for understanding their evolution and that of their close relatives, including avialans. This study aimed to fill in this gap by offering a comprehensive review of the previous osteohistological investigations published on deinonychosaurians and Archaeopteryx . Four significant evolutionary phenomena are assumed from the investigated deinonychosaurian taxa: (1) it is likely that troodontids evolved general osteohistology closer to basal avialans than to dromaeosaurids, (2) in troodontids, reticular vasculature is correlated to maturation timing, (3) the first growth deceleration occurs later in smaller deinonychosaurs (e.g. Changyuraptor , Sinornithosaurus ) than in larger forms (e.g. Buitreraptor ), and (4) the growth rate of the deinonychosaurs' hind limbs might be correlated with a specific type of locomotion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".