MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W18760785 · doi:10.2741/3882

Induction and patterning of intramembranous bone

2011· review· en· W18760785 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Topicdental development and anomalies
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
FundersNova Scotia Health Research FoundationMount Saint Vincent University
KeywordsIntramembranous ossificationEndochondral ossificationOssificationCartilageAnatomyBone developmentProcess (computing)SkullBiologyNeuroscienceMedicineComputer scienceEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary focus of this article is to review intramembranous bone development, that is, ossification that takes place directly. Comparisons with endochondral ossification (ossification with a cartilage precursor) will be made in order to illustrate the differences between these two modes of ossification and to highlight the comparatively sparse information that is available about intramembranous ossification. Despite decades of research into understanding skeletal development, there is still much to learn. Most of the research in this area has focused on the development of the calvariae (or skull bones) as typical intramembranous bones and the development of the limb bones as a typical endochondral bones. Few studies investigate other skeletal elements or compare these processes in a systematic manner. In this review, I focus primarily on condensation formation and skeletal patterning with specific examples from different organisms.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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