Methods for the analysis of developmental sequence data
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterochrony, evolutionary changes in developmental timing, can be studied either by examining changes in growth or changes in the sequence of developmental events. Developmental sequence data has the potential to address many important questions in the field of developmental evolution, but methodological challenges remain due to the biological and logical dependence of events in a ranked sequence. In the past 10 years, the study of sequence heterochrony has undergone a rebirth, with the creation of several new methods for the analysis of this type of data. These methods can be divided into two broad categories: phenetic comparisons between terminal taxa that strive to uncover integrations within the developmental sequences and putative shared sequence heterochronies, and phylogeny-based methods that derive ancestor-descendent sequence heterochronies and establish statements of sequence evolution. In this review, we will discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the methodologies that have been proposed to quantitatively examine developmental sequence data, and studies that have attempted to implement them in an evolutionary context.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it