Head organization and the head/trunk relationship in protochordates: problems and prospects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fossil record has been an invaluable aid for reconstructing the major events of vertebrate evolution. There is no comparable record for protochordates, however, which severely limits our knowledge of their ancestral morphology, habits, and mode of life. The alternative is inference based on an interpretation of living protochordates but this is fraught with problems, not least being our own biases of what we think an ancestral chordate ought to look like. Relevant to the present symposium is the problem of head/trunk relationships and whether or not the myotomes of the trunk originally extended into the head in vertebrates. I will review what is currently known of patterns of innervation in tunicates and amphioxus in relation to Romer's somaticovisceral concept of the vertebrate body to show how little progress has been made in resolving this problem. There are, in contrast, surprisingly good prospects for solving some other puzzles concerning chordate origins. Dorsoventral inversion provides a good example. A consensus is now emerging, based largely on molecular data from hemichordates that casts new light on the asymmetry of the head in amphioxus. Specifically, the morphogenetic growth process that reestablishes symmetry in late-stage larvae can now be seen, at least in part, as a recapitulation of past evolutionary events, and this has important implications for the origin and basic organization of the brain.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".