Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chasmosaurus belli Lambe, 1902 Monoclonius belli Lambe 1902: 59 Monoclonius canadensis Lambe 1902: 63 Ceratops belli Hatcher et al. 1907: 97 Ceratops canadensis Hatcher et al. 1907: 97 Protorosaurus belli Lambe 1914: 131 Chasmosaurus belli Lambe 1914: 149 Eoceratops canadensis Lambe 1915: 2 Chasmosaurus kaiseni Brown 1933: 2 Chasmosaurus brevirostris Lull 1933: 94 Chasmosaurus canadensis Lehman 1989: 139 Amended diagnosis. Taxon displaying the combination of characters unique to the genus Chasmosaurus along with the following features: (1) parietal posterior bar bearing no median emargination and is nearly straight so that it forms a ‘T’ shape with the parietal median bar; (2) lateral pair of epiparietals large and triangular; others, when preserved, are smaller (after Godfrey & Holmes 1995). Both characters are autapomorphic for C. belli within Chasmosaurus. Holotype. CMN 491, a partial parietal. Although fragmentary, the holotype is diagnostic based on the combination of generic character 4, and specific character 1, a combination not observed in any other chasmosaurine. Distribution. Middle and upper beds of the Dinosaur Park Formation, Alberta, Canada (Ryan & Evans 2005). Referred specimens. CMN 2245; AMNH 5402; ROM 843; YPM 2016; NHMUK R4948 (after Ryan & Evans 2005). The NHMUK specimen is referred to Chasmosaurus because it possesses characters 1, 3, 4 and 5 from the diagnosis of Chasmosaurus (above); it is referred to C. belli because it possesses character 1 from the diagnosis of C. belli (above). Specimens removed from C. belli. ROM 839 was referred to C. belli by Ryan and Evans (2005) and Longrich (2010), but is not diagnosable to species level based on the amended diagnosis presented here and represents Chasmosaurus sp.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.004 |
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".