MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Canalization and developmental stability in the Brachyrrhine mouse

2006· article· en· W2114377356 on OpenAlexafffund
Katherine E. Willmore, Miriam Leah Zelditch, Nathan M. Young, Andrew C. Ah-Seng, Scott Lozanoff, Benedikt Hallgrímsson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Anatomy · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMorphological variations and asymmetry
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGenome AlbertaGovernment of CanadaNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesGenome Canada
KeywordsNeurocraniumSkullBiologyCranial vaultFluctuating asymmetryPhenotypeMutationAnatomyHeterozygote advantageAlleleEvolutionary biologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The semi-dominant Br mutation affects presphenoid growth, producing the facial retrognathism and globular neurocranial vault that characterize heterozygotes. We analysed the impact of this mutation on skull shape, comparing heterozygotes to wildtype mice, to determine if the effects are skull-wide or confined to the sphenoid region targeted by the mutation. In addition, we examined patterns of variability of shape for the skull as a whole and for three regions (basicranium, face and neurocranium). We found that the Br mice differed significantly from wildtype mice in skull shape in all three regions as well as in the shape of the skull as a whole. However, the significant increases in variance and fluctuating asymmetry were found only in the basicranium of mutant mice. These results suggest that the mutation has a significant effect on the underlying developmental architecture of the skull, which produces an increase in phenotypic variability that is localized to the anatomical region in which the mean phenotype is most dramatically affected. These results suggest that the same developmental mechanisms that produce the change in phenotypic mean also produce the change in variance.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations47
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AnatomySame topicMorphological variations and asymmetryFrench-language works237,207