MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408862590 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2025.112141

Didactyl therizinosaur with a preserved keratinous claw from the Late Cretaceous of Mongolia

2025· article· en· W4408862590 on OpenAlexafffund
Yoshitsugu Kobayashi, Darla K. Zelenitsky, Anthony R. Fiorillo, Tsogtbaatar Chinzorig

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsClawCretaceousInner mongoliaAstrobiologyChemistryBotanyPaleontologyBiologyGeologyChinaArchaeologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Therizinosaurs were a group of herbivorous/omnivorous theropod dinosaurs that lived in Asia and North America during the Cretaceous Period. These theropods are notable for their three-fingered hands sporting large claw-like unguals. Here, we describe a new and unusual species of the therizinosaurid Duonychus tsogtbaatari , recovered from the lower Upper Cretaceous Bayanshiree Formation of the Gobi Desert of Mongolia. This species is different from other therizinosaurs in that the hand possesses only two fingers, rather than three fingers, the typical condition for Avetheropoda, providing further insight into forelimb/hand reduction among theropods. Phylogenetically, Duonychus reveals a broader but still limited appearance of didactyly among avetheropodans. The manual ungual of Duonychus tsogtbaatari also preserves a nearly complete three-dimensional structure covering the ungual of the left manual digit I, which represents a keratinous manual claw. The strong curvature of this large claw and high ungual flexion indicate that Duonychus was likely amplectorial (grasping) and an effective grasper of vegetation, despite having only two functional fingers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.861

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207