Re‐evaluation of a soft crested <scp>Edmontosaurin</scp> , with implications for hadrosaurid life appearance and diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hadrosaurid dinosaurs are generally regarded as "crested" or "non-crested" depending on the presence or absence of a bony cranial crest. At least one supposedly "non-crested" hadrosaur is known to have possessed a soft tissue cranial crest (or comb), based on an exceptionally preserved "mummified" specimen. Here we redescribe this specimen and identify new features of the skeleton and integument. The comb evidently covered most of the skull roof and appears to have a crenelated anterior margin. Injury of the neck integument is identified for the first time and resembles previously reported hadrosaurid integumentary pathologies. The previously undescribed left side of the specimen shows disarticulated axial elements and detached integument, supporting a slow-burial mummification timeline. New preparation of the specimen reveals a shallow postorbital pocket that lacks a posterodorsal diverticulum, precluding both the original referral to Edmontosaurus regalis and an alternative referral to Edmontosaurus annectens. While we regard the existing skull material to be insufficient for holotype status, the unique morphology of the postorbital pocket warrants the recognition of this specimen as a distinct taxonomic unit from existing Edmontosaurus species, which we designate the Red Willow Edmontosaurin. The smooth, unremarkable skull texture visible beneath the comb shows that the predictive power of surface osteology with respect to soft display features is limited. Apart from this specimen, the distribution of soft-tissue crests in saurolophine and lambeosaurine hadrosaurids is currently unknown.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".