Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classical molecular DevoEvo originated, among other reasons, from the discovery of highly conserved developmental genes in distantly related organisms (Carroll et al., 2010). This was an important discovery, not the least because it allowed comparative developmental studies in non-model organisms and meaningful comparisons among species with little if any body plan similarities. Hence, the revolution of developmental genetics triggered a revolution in evolutionary biology leading to a bridge between long separated cousins, evolutionary and developmental biology. Now, we are faced with the fallout of another revolution in molecular biology, the simultaneous advent of next gen sequencing, synthetic and systems biology. It is already clear that the impact on the study of evolution of these advances will be as fundamental as the discovery of the homeobox was 30 years ago. This is what we call here “Next Gen Devo Evo,” a new phase of evolutionary discovery driven by the technological advances sweeping through present day biology creating new conceptual challenges for understanding the complexity of organismal evolution. When Frank Ruddle created the Molecular and Developmental Evolution section of the Journal of Experimental Zoology in 1999, the idea was to provide a platform for the publication of the then new field of evolutionary developmental biology. Now that we can see the coming of a new phase of mechanistically based evolutionary biology, it was decided to change the face and the editorial team of the journal to meet the anticipated change in the character of our science. With this issue the journal introduces a new team of associate editors with expertise reflecting the profile of Next Gen Devo Evo. Beside the core areas of DevoEvo, comparative vertebrate development (Kuratani, RIKEN Japan, Milinkovitch, University of Geneva), insect (Abouheif, McGill University), and other invertebrate developmental evolution (Wanninger, University of Vienna), as well as history and philosophy of biology (Brigandt, University of Alberta), we also now have editors who focus on computational systems biology (Teichmann, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, Cambridge, UK), synthetic biology (Peisajovich, University of Toronto), and bioinformatics/biophysics (Milinkovitch, University of Geneva). Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution is dedicating its resources to foster and enhance a rigorous, mechanistic, and synthetic evolutionary biology, that is, to foster Next Gen Devo Evo.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.129 | 0.071 |
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".