Bibliographic record
Abstract
3. RESULTS (a) RI scaling of theropods and quadrupedal carnivorous archosaurs Least-squares regression of log-transformed data (table 1) indicates that theropod RI scaled to mass with an exponent of 1.546 and an intercept of ― 1.630, whereas in the quadrupedal forms RI scaled to mass with an exponent and intercept of 1.624 and ― 1.630, respectively. These slopes are significantly different (t -test, p <0.016), and that of the quadrupedal archosaurs is closer to the value of 1.667 predicted from geometric similarity. Plotting RI against body mass (figure 2) highlights the reduction of RI at large body size in theropods, despite the apparently small difference in their scaling coefficient from that of non-dinosaurian forms. Dramatically, the 5.7 tonnes (t) Acrocanthosaurus atokensis has only 43% of the RI predicted from isometric scaling, and this diminishes to 36% in the 10 t Tyrannosaurus rex. This 10 t estimate is greater than those for other specimens of T. rex (Henderson 1999), but because mass is proportional to the cube of length, the greater length of Field Museum of Natural History specimen FMNH PR2081 (we measured it at 12.01 m) results in a substantially larger body mass. As Tyrannosaurus is almost twice the mass of the next heaviest animal, Acrocanthosaurus, T. rex could potentially act as an outlier and distort the identified scaling relationship. However, exclusion of T. rex from the regression analysis resulted in trivial changes in the slope and intercept values (to 1.545 and ― 1.629, respectively).
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".