MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103105169 · doi:10.1139/z00-218

Larval and life-cycle patterns in echinoderms

2001· article· en· W2103105169 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Larry R. McEdward, Benjamin G. Miner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMarine Biology and Environmental Chemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLarvaFacultativeEchinodermEcologyBody planBenthic zoneZoologyMetamorphosisFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We review the literature on larval development of 182 asteroids, 20 crinoids, 177 echinoids, 69 holothuroids, and 67 ophiuroids. For each class, we describe the various larval types, common features of a larval body plan, developmental patterns in terms of life-cycle character states and sequences of larval stages, phylogenetic distribution of these traits, and infer evolutionary transitions that account for the documented diversity. Asteroids, echinoids, holothuroids, and ophiuroids, but not crinoids, have feeding larvae. All five classes have evolved nonfeeding larvae. Direct development has been documented in asteroids, echinoids, and ophiuroids. Facultative planktotrophy has been documented only in echinoids. It is surprising that benthic, free-living, feeding larvae have not been reported in echinoderms. From this review, we conclude that it is the ecological and functional demands on larvae which impose limits on developmental evolution and determine the associations of larval types and life-cycle character states that give rise to the developmental patterns that we observe in echinoderms. Two factors seriously limit analyses of larval and life-cycle evolution in echinoderms. First is the limited understanding of developmental diversity and second is the lack of good phylogenies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations158
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicMarine Biology and Environmental ChemistryFrench-language works237,207