FIGURE 6 in Craniocervical feeding dynamics of Tyrannosaurus rex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
FIGURE 6. Position vectors for craniocervical muscles of Tyrannosaurus rex (AMNH 5027; skeletal drawings modified from Paul 1988) with the head and neck held in a lateroflexed posture in the frontal plane, with the same dorsoventral orientation as in a neutral posture. Note that M. complexus increases in lateroflexive capability in this posture compared with that of M. long. cap. sup. These dorsal ordinations enable decomposition of x and z components; vertical (y) components are the same as in the neutral posture (Fig. 2). Muscle vectors and bone outlines follow the shading and dash conventions of Figure 2. A, M. longissimus capitis superficialis (M. long. cap. sup.) and M. complexus. B, M. longissimus capitis profundus (M. long. cap. prof.) and M. rectus capitis ventralis (M. r. c. v.). C, M. transversospinalis capitis (M. trans. cap.) and M. iliocostalis capitis (M. il. cap.). For M. trans. cap., lines of tension on the left, extended side from fascicles posterior to C8 are considered as transmitted through via points within the muscle (represented as a transparent overlay). On both sides, the insertion tendon of M. trans. cap passed through via points over the neural spines of C3 and C2. D, M. transversospinalis cervicis (M. trans. cerv.) inserting on C2. On the left (extended) side, tension from posterior fascicles is modeled as passing through intramuscular via points. The muscle is shown as a transparent overlay. E, M. trans. cerv. inserting on C3, with similar intramuscular via points and the muscle shown as a transparent overlay. F, M. trans. cerv. inserting on C4, and M. spl. cap.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
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".