Larval and life-cycle patterns in echinoderms
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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it