Tail growth in <i>Chamaeleo dilepis</i> (Sauria: Chamaeleonidae): functional implications of segmental patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Patterns of growth of caudal vertebrae in the chameleon Chamaeleo dilepis were determined using principal component analysis, and compared to growth of the entire tail relative to snout–vent length. Despite significant positive allometry of the whole tail, growth rates of vertebrae differed along the length of the tail. Specifically, there was a proximal region that grew positively allometrically, and an extensive distal portion that grew with negative allometry. Intervening, was a short transitional region of approximate isometry. Positive allometry of the entire tail resulted from the extensive proximal region that grew in this manner. Although the region of positive allometry extended further caudad than the m. caudofemoralis longus, m. retractor penis magnus, and m. ischiocaudalis, its extent correlated more closely with the presence of neural spines (which are used as a proxy for the extent of the m. transversospinalis) and with tail coiling in this species. The positively allometric region housed the non‐segmental musculature of the tail and did not bend, and the negatively allometric region identified the portion of the tail that was prehensile.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".