The Cells that Fill the Bill: Neural Crest and the Evolution of Craniofacial Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian embryos, which have been studied scientifically since Aristotle, continue to persevere as invaluable research tools, especially for our understanding of the development and evolution of the craniofacial skeleton. Whether the topic is beak shape in Darwin's finches or signaling interactions that underlie bone and tooth formation, birds offer advantages for craniofacial biology that uniquely complement the strengths of other vertebrate model systems, such as fish, frogs, and mice. Several papers published during the past few years have helped pinpoint molecular and cellular mechanisms that pattern the face and jaws through experiments that could only have been done together with our feathered friends. Ultimately, such knowledge will be essential for devising novel clinical approaches to treat and/or prevent diseases, injuries, and birth defects that affect the human craniofacial skeleton. Here we review recent insights plucked from avians on key developmental processes that generate craniofacial diversity.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".