MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The evolution of the amphibian lateral line system and its bearing on amphibian phylogeny

2009· article· en· W2118838039 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Lannoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAmphibianAnatomyLateral lineMost recent common ancestorCaudataZoologyEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In modern amphibians that are aquatic the lateral line system is organized, by order, as follows: caecilians have electroreceptive ampullary organs and single rows of mechanoreceptive neuromast organs; generalized anurans have single rows of neuromasts that divide in a transverse plane to form secondary neuromasts or stitches, they do not have ampullary organs; generalized urodeles have ampullary organs, transverse stitches, and double or triple rows of neuromasts. Fossil evidence indicates that early amphibians had both ampullary organs and single rows of neuromasts embedded in bone. With time, receptors became epidermal in all three orders. Modern caecilians have retained the primitive receptor arrangement. I propose that the common ancestor of anurans and urodeles had transverse stitches, and that this character allies these two groups. Subsequent to the anuranurodele split, anurans lost their ampullary organs, perhaps concomitant with developing specializations for herbivory. Urodeles developed orthogonal neuromast couplets und triplets. In modern anurans und urodeles, transverse stitches are correlated with pond dwelling, while ampullary organs are correlated with carnivory, suggesting that the anuran-urodele ancestor(s) was a (were) pond-dwelling carnivore(s).

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.455
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Zoological Systematics & Evolutionary ResearchSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207