Life history evolution and comparative developmental biology of echinoderms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary biologists studying life history variation have used echinoderms in experimental, laboratory, and field studies of life history evolution. This focus on echinoderms grew originally from the tradition of comparative embryology, in which echinoderms were central. The tools for obtaining and manipulating echinoderm gametes and larvae were taken directly from comparative embryological research. In addition, the comparative embryologists employed a diverse array of echinoderms, not a few model species, and this diversity has led to a broad understanding of the development, function, and evolution of echinoderm larvae. As a result, this branch of life history evolution has deep roots in comparative developmental biology of echinoderms. Here two main aspects of this relationship are reviewed. The first is a broad range of studies of fertilization biology, dispersal, population genetics, functional morphology, and asexual reproduction in which developmental biologists might take a keen interest because of the historical origins of this research in echinoderm comparative embryology. The second is a similarly broad variety of topics in life history research in which evolutionary biologists require techniques or data from developmental biology in order to make progress on understanding patterns of life history variation among echinoderm species and higher taxa. Both sets of topics provide opportunities for interaction and collaboration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".