MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979302799 · doi:10.1159/000115860

The Photoreceptor Axon Projection and Its Evolution in the Neural Superposition Eyes of Some Primitive Brachyceran Diptera (Part 1 of 2)

2008· article· en· W1979302799 on OpenAlexaff
S. R. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain Behavior and Evolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOmmatidiumBiologyAxonAnatomyCompound eyeEvolutionary biologyRetinaNeuroscienceOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All known brachyceran flies have inherited the same trapezoidal pattern of rhabdomeres in the ommatidia of the compound eye, different from that of their presumed nematoceran ancestors. The projection pattern of axons to lamina cartridges needs to match this in order to generate efficient neural superposition vision. This pattern has been traced in serial sections or via stimulated dye uptake in two families that diverged from the dipteran stem line more than 200 million years ago (Rhagionidae, Stratiomyidae) and in one family of intermediate age (Dolichopodidae). All show the same asymmetric projection as modern muscoid families and a concordantly 180 degrees-twisted axon bundle, suggesting that evolution to the 'modern' versions of both optics and projection coincided closely in evolutionary time. The basic developmental plan of the cartridge has also been retained since the origin of the Brachycera, but the synaptic participation of at least one axon (that of photoreceptor R7) varies markedly between species.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrain Behavior and EvolutionSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207