Taphonomy of the Danek Bonebed: a monodominant Edmontosaurus (Hadrosauridae) bonebed from the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Danek Bonebed (Horsethief Member, Horseshoe Canyon Formation, Late Campanian) is dominated by the remains of at least 12 Edmontosaurus regalis. Skeletal remains of a tyrannosaurid and ceratopsid are also known. The predominantly disarticulated remains were interred on a periodically inundated floodplain and, although the cause of death is unknown, a sudden, catastrophic death explains the demographic spread, faunal diversity, rare greenstick fractures, and homogeneous weathering/abrasion categories of the assemblage. The Danek Bonebed shares a similar taphonomic signature to the Liscomb Bonebed (Prince Creek Formation, Alaska), but it is unique among all other described hadrosaurid bonebeds in the unusually high proportion of bite-marked bones (∼30%), suggesting scavenging played a major role in the reworking of the assemblage. The highest frequency of bite marks is found on small, often unidentifiable (and commonly ignored) bone fragments, underscoring the role that such fragments can play in taphonomic interpretation. Finally, the recognition of E. regalis from central Alberta is an important datum linking contemporaneous occurrences in southern Alberta with slightly older records of this species from the Wapiti Formation in northwestern Alberta.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".