MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503329970 · doi:10.1002/9780470319390.ch12

Evolution of Covariance in the Mammalian Skull

2006· review· en· W1503329970 on OpenAlexaff
Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Daniel E. Lieberman, Nathan M. Young, Trish E. Parsons, Steven Wat

Bibliographic record

VenueNovartis Foundation symposium · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsAlberta Bone and Joint Health InstituteUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovarianceEvolvabilityBiologyEvolutionary biologyVariation (astronomy)Modularity (biology)SkullVariance (accounting)MathematicsStatisticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The skull is a developmentally complex and highly integrated structure. Integration, which is manifested as covariance among structures, enables the skull and associated soft tissues to maintain function both across ontogeny within individuals and across the ranges of size and shape variation among individuals. Integration also contributes to evolvability by structuring the phenotypic expression of genetic variation. We argue that the pattern of covariation seen in complex phenotypes such as the skull results from the overlaying of variation introduced by developmental and environmental factors at different stages of development. Much like a palimpsest, the covariation structure of an adult skull represents the summed imprint of a succession of effects, each of which leaves a distinctive covariation signal determined by the specific set of developmental interactions involved. Covariance evolves either by altering the variance of one of these sequential effects or through the introduction of a novel covariance producing effect. Either way is consistent with the notion that evolutionary change occurs through tinkering. We illustrate these principles through analyses of how genetic perturbations acting at different developmental stages (embryonic, fetal, and postnatal) influence the covariance structure of adult mouse skulls. As predicted by the model, the results illustrate the intimate relationship between the modulation of variance and the expression of covariance. The results also demonstrate that covariance patterns have a complex relationship to the underlying developmental architecture, thus highlighting problems with making inferences about developmental relationships (e.g. modularity) based on covariation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.088
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations108
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNovartis Foundation symposiumSame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207