MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparative ossification and development of the skull in palaeognathous birds (Aves: Palaeognathae)

2009· article· en· W1973251230 on OpenAlexaff
Erin E. Maxwell

Bibliographic record

VenueZoological Journal of the Linnean Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNeotenyOssificationSkullHeterochronyAnatomyZoologyGalliformesEvolutionary biologyOntogeny

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ratites and tinamous are a morphologically diverse group of flightless and weakly flighted birds. As one of the most basal clades of extant birds, they are frequently used as an outgroup for studies discussing character evolution within other avian orders. Their skeletal development is not well known in spite of their important phylogenetic position, and studies have historically been plagued with small sample sizes and limited anatomical and temporal scope. Here, I describe the ossification of the skull in the emu (Dromaius novaehollandiae), ostrich (Struthio camelus), greater rhea (Rhea americana), and elegant crested-tinamou (Eudromia elegans). Skeletal development is remarkably consistent within palaeognaths, in spite of large differences in absolute size and incubation period. Adult morphology appears to play a role in interordinal differences in the sequence and timing of ossification of certain bones. Neither the timing of cranial ossification events relative to stage nor the sequence of ossification events provides any evidence in support of a paedomorphic origin of the palaeognathous palate. This study provides an important first look at the timing and sequence of skull development in palaeognathous birds, providing data that can be compared to better-studied avian systems in order to polarize ontogenetic characters.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.213 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations49
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoological Journal of the Linnean SocietySame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207