MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979386184 · doi:10.1139/z05-170

Embryogenesis and larval differentiation in sponges

2006· article· en· W1979386184 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Sally P. Leys, Alexander Ereskovsky

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMarine Sponges and Natural Products
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsBiologyBody planMulticellular organismSpongeMorphogenesisEmbryoCell biologyEmbryogenesisPolarity (international relations)Cellular differentiationAnatomyLarvaEvolutionary biologyEcologyCellGeneticsBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having descended from the first multicellular animals on earth, sponges are a key group in which to seek innovations that form the basis of the metazoan body plan, but sponges themselves have a body plan that is extremely difficult to reconcile with that of other animals. Adult sponges lack overt anterior–posterior polarity and sensory organs, and whether they possess true tissues is even debated. Nevertheless, sexual reproduction occurs as in other metazoans, with the development of embryos through a structured series of cellular divisions and organized rearrangements of cellular material, using both mesenchymal and epithelial movements to form a multicellular embryo. In most cases, the embryo undergoes morphogenesis into a spatially organized larva that has several cell layers, anterior–posterior polarity, and sensory capabilities. Here we review original data on the mode of cleavage, timing of cellular differentiation, and the mechanisms involved in the organization of differentiated cells to form the highly structured sponge larva. Our ultimate goal is to develop interpretations of the phylogenetic importance of these data within the Porifera and among basal Metazoa.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations100
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Sponges and Natural ProductsFrench-language works237,207