MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1745759532 · doi:10.1134/s1062359015070067

The development of flight surfaces on the avian wing

2015· article· en· W1745759532 on OpenAlexaff
Gary W. Kaiser, Gareth J. Dyke

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Bulletin · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal British Columbia Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWingBiologyBody planAerodynamicsFossil RecordBird flightEvolutionary biologyPlan (archaeology)Evolutionary developmental biologyPaleontologyAerospace engineeringEngineeringFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of the feathering arrangements that comprise the modern avian wing can be tracked using both physical evidence from the known fossil record and by interpreting aerodynamic theory. Evidence from both the fossil record and from living birds suggests that all feathered wings reflect the same basic structural plan. Here we review scenarios for the evolutionary history of the lifting surfaces of the feathered wing, suggesting non-locomotory influences on their early development and building on Pennycuick’s (2008) aerodynamic theories for the eventual development of avian flight.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology BulletinSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207