Divergence of craniofacial developmental trajectories among avian embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Morphological divergence among related species involves changes to developmental processes. When such variation arises in development has garnered considerable theoretical interest relating to the broader issue of how development may constrain evolutionary change. The hourglass model holds that while early developmental events may be highly evolvable, there is a phylotypic stage when key developmental events are conserved. Thus, evolutionary divergence among related species should tend to arise after such a stage of reduced evolvability and, consequently, reduced variation among species. We test this prediction by comparing developmental trajectories among three avian species of varying relatedness (chick, quail, and duck) to locate their putative point of divergence. Three-dimensional geometric morphometrics and trajectory analyses were used to measure the significance of the facial shape variation observed among these species. RESULTS: Duck embryos, being more distantly related, differed from the more closely-related chick and quail embryos in the enlargement of their frontonasal prominences. Phenotypic trajectory analyses demonstrated divergence of the three species, most notably, duck. CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that the two more closely related species share similar facial morphologies for a longer time during development, while ducks diverge. This suggests a surprising lability of craniofacial development during early face formation. Developmental Dynamics 244:1158-1167, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".