Ossification sequence of the avian order anseriformes, with comparison to other precocial birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ossification sequences are poorly known for most amniotes, and yet they represent an important source of morphogenetic, phylogenetic, and life history information. Here, the author describes the ossification sequences of three ducks, the Common Eider Somateria mollissima dresseri, the Pekin Duck Anas platyrhynchos, and the Muscovy Duck Cairina moschata. Sequence differences exist both within and among these species, but are generally minor. The Common Eider has the most ossified skeleton prior to hatching, contrary to what is expected in a subarctic migrant species. This may be attributed to a tradeoff between growth rate and locomotory performance. Growth rate is higher in hatchlings with more cartilaginous skeletons, but this may compromise locomotion. No major ossification sequence differences were observed in the craniofacial skeleton when compared with Galliformes, which suggests that the influence of adult morphology on ossification sequence might be relatively minor in many taxa. Galliformes and Anseriformes, while both highly ossified at hatching, differ in the location of their late-stage ossification centers. In Anseriformes, these are most often located in the appendicular skeleton, whereas in Galliformes they are in the thoracic region and form the ventilatory apparatus.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".