MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068449273 · doi:10.1002/jmor.10479

Skeletal elements within teleost eyes and a discussion of their homology

2006· article· en· W2068449273 on OpenAlexaff
Tamara A. Franz‐Odendaal, Brian K. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Morphology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlaucoma and retinal disorders
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOssiclesBiologyAnatomyDanioZebrafishMiddle earGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scleral ossicles and scleral cartilages form part of the craniofacial skeleton of many vertebrates. Some vertebrates, including all birds and most reptiles, but excluding most mammals, have scleral cartilages as well as scleral ossicles supporting their eyes. The teleost equivalent of these elements has received little attention in the literature. From radiographic and whole-mount analyses of over 400 individuals from 376 teleost species, we conclude that the teleost scleral skeletal elements (ossicles and cartilage) differ significantly from those of reptiles (including birds). Scleral ossicles in teleosts have different developmental origins, different positions within the eyeball, and different relationships with the scleral cartilaginous element than those in reptiles. From whole-mount staining of a growth series of four species of teleost (Danio rerio, Salmo salar, Esox lucius, and Alosa pseudoharengus), we interpret the development of these elements and show that they arise from within an Alcian blue-staining cartilaginous ring that develops around the eye earlier in development. We present possible scenarios on the evolution of these scleral skeletal elements from a common gnathostome ancestor, and consider that teleost scleral skeletal elements may not be homologous to those in reptiles. Our study indicates that homology cannot be assumed for these elements, despite the fact that they share the same name, scleral ossicles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MorphologySame topicGlaucoma and retinal disordersFrench-language works237,207