Palaeontology and Evolutionary Developmental Biology: A Science of the Nineteenth and Twenty–first Centuries
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
A wind of change has swept through palaeontology in the past few decades. Contrast Sir Peter Medawar’s dismissive: ‘palaeontology is a particularly undemanding branch of science’ (as recalled by John Maynard Smith in Sabbagh 1999, p. 158) with ‘Palaeontology: grasping the opportunities in the science of the twenty–first century’, the title of a contribution to a special issue of Geobios by the Cambridge palaeontologist, Simon Conway Morris (1998 a ). The winds of change have come partly from palaeontologists seeking to broaden the impact of their studies and partly from biologists (neontologists) realizing the contributions that palaeontology can make to their disciplines. Consequently, impressions of past life preserved in stone are coming alive. Fossils are being described and analyzed using new tools and languages as the static fossil record becomes a record of transitions in patterns that can be explained and related to biological, ecological, climatic and tectonic changes. The latest addition is evolutionary developmental biology, or ‘evo–devo’, whose language provides a new basis upon which to interpret anatomical change, both materially and mechanistically. In this review I examine the major contributions made by palaeontology, how palaeontology has been linked to evolution and to embryology in the past, and how links with evo–devo have enlivened and will continue to enliven both palaeontology and evo–devo. Closer links between the two fields should illuminate important unresolved issues related to the origin of the metazoans (e.g. Why is there a conflict between molecular clocks and the fossil record in timing the metazoan radiation; were Precambrian metazoan ancestors similar to extant larvae or to miniature adults?) and to diversification of the metazoans (e.g. How do developmental constraints bias the direction of evolution; how do microevolutionary developmental processes relate to macroevolutionary changes?).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.007 |
| 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 it