MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106704051 · doi:10.1139/e02-081

"Without a leg to stand on": on the evolution and development of axial elongation and limblessness in tetrapods

2003· article· en· W2106704051 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Michael W. Caldwell

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsAnatomyTetrapod (structure)Appendicular skeletonContext (archaeology)Axial skeletonAppendageBiologyForelimbPermianOsteologyNumerical digitSkeleton (computer programming)PaleontologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of the osteology of the axial and appendicular skeleton of fossil and extant tetrapods, in the context of tetrapod phylogenetic patterns, reveals common patterns of limb loss and axial elongation. A threshold number of 35–40 presacral vertebrae is linked to minor reductions in digit number and the phalangeal count. Presacral vertebral counts do not increase gradually, rather, presacral counts jump from 35–40 to 60–70. At this point, limb loss is extreme, with forelimbs being reduced to tiny appendages or lost altogether. Higher presacral counts (>90) are linked to total forelimb loss and radical rear-limb reductions culminating in total loss. A pattern of this sort is recognized in Paleozoic lepospondyls and Mesozoic to modern squamates. Developmental genetic models illuminate gene systems that are associated with morphogenesis and are linked to the evolution of limb reduction and leglessness in these tetrapods.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations53
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyFrench-language works237,207