SMALL THEROPOD AND BIRD TEETH FROM THE LATE CRETACEOUS (LATE CAMPANIAN) JUDITH RIVER GROUP, ALBERTA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A collection of over 1,700 small theropod teeth from the Judith River Group (Campanian; ∼79.5–74 Ma) allows our understanding of the diversity and variation of small theropods in this assemblage to be refined. In addition to the previously recognized taxa, a series of morphologically distinct groups are recognized that may represent distinct taxa in some cases. Teeth with the Paronychodon-like features of a flat surface with longitudinal ridges on one side are resolved into a few discrete morphotypes. Two of these are included in Paronychodon lacustris and two additional morphotypes are hypothesized to represent distinct taxa, here referred to as ?Dromaeosaurus morphotype A and Genus and species indet. A. The teeth of Paronychodon lacustris and ?Dromaeosaurus morphotype A share a distinctive wear pattern that suggests tooth functioning involved contact between the flat surfaces of opposing teeth. Two species of Richardoestesia, R. gilmorei and R. isosceles, are present in the assemblage. Additionally, bird teeth are identified in the assemblage and are described in this review. Bivariate plots were used to document the variation in the theropod teeth, especially in the features that distinguish between Richardoestesia gilmorei, R. isosceles, Saurornitholestes, and Dromaeosaurus. Considerable overlap is present in all plots, so although the teeth are morphologically distinct, they are not easily distinguished by quantitative means.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".