MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6912195903 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.3810813

Albertosaurus Osborn 1905

2003· article· en· W6912195903 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHolotypeSkullSkeleton (computer programming)Subject (documents)Character (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus— Albertosaurus libratus is based on a nearly complete skeleton (NMC 2120) described by Lambe (1914a, b, 1917) as Gorgosaurus libratus. The holotype skull is crushed, but most of it is preserved. It hails from the Dinosaur Park Formation and is the best-sampled North American tyrannosaurid, with multiple well-preserved specimens having been collected since Lambe’s time. Albertosaurus sarcophagus Osborn, 1905 is based on a partial skeleton (NMC 5600) from the overlying Edmonton Formation of Alberta (Osborn, 1905). It is not as well preserved as the type of A. libratus. A partial skeleton with no skull from the Edmonton was later described by Parks (1928) as Albertosaurus arctunguis', most authorities now regard A. arctunguis to be a junior synonym of A. sarcophagus (Molnar et al., 1990; Carpenter, 1992). Russell (1970) was the first to synonymize Gorgosaurus with Albertosaurus. I agree with Holtz (2001a) that the character states diagnosing a more inclusive Albertosaurus are plesiomorphic (and thus problematic), and the characters used by Russell (1970) to separate them as species rely on skull and limb proportions that might be subject to preservational or ontogenetic variation. Ongoing work by Philip Currie (P. Currie, pers. comm.) is clarifying the diagnoses of these fossils, but for purposes of this analysis, they will be considered species of Albertosaurus. Carpenter (1992) argued that the promaxillary fenestra lies close to the maxillary fenestra in A. libratus, but not in A. sarcophagus, and that the promaxillary fenestra of A. libratus is invisible in lateral view. In all mature A. libratus and A. sarcophagus maxillae available for this study, the morphology of the maxillary and promaxillary fenestrae was identical. The reconstruction of A. libratus figured by Carpenter (1992:fig. 2E) looks similar to that published by Russell (1970:fig. 1), but in Russell’s reconstruction, the lateral morphological details are based on FMNH PR308. In that specimen, the promaxillary fenestra is not preserved on either side. In fact, based on the number of dentary and maxillary alveoli, this specimen may pertain to Daspletosaurus, not Albertosaurus (Carr, 1999; Holtz, 2001a)—and the promaxillary fenestra is not visible in lateral view in Daspletosaurus, as implied by Carpenter (1992) for A. libratus.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology→French-language works237,207→