MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Early Eye Development in Vertebrates

2001· review· en· W2112718652 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicOcular Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCuriosityAnophthalmiaCyclopiaEmbryologyEye developmentNeuroscienceMicrophthalmiaHoloprosencephalyCognitive scienceAnatomyPsychologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This review provides a synthesis that combines data from classical experimentation and recent advances in our understanding of early eye development. Emphasis is placed on the events that underlie and direct neural retina formation and lens induction. Understanding these events represents a longstanding problem in developmental biology. Early interest can be attributed to the curiosity generated by the relatively frequent occurrence of disorders such as cyclopia and anophthalmia, in which dramatic changes in eye development are readily observed. However, it was the advent of experimental embryology at the turn of the century that transformed curiosity into active investigation. Pioneered by investigators such as Spemann and Adelmann, these embryological manipulations have left a profound legacy. Questions about early eye development first addressed using tissue manipulations remain topical as we try to understand the molecular basis of this process.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.278 · 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