A linear-encoding model explains the variability of the target morphology in regeneration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental assumption of today's molecular genetics paradigm is that complex morphology emerges from the combined activity of low-level processes involving proteins and nucleic acids. An inherent characteristic of such nonlinear encodings is the difficulty of creating the genetic and epigenetic information that will produce a given self-assembling complex morphology. This 'inverse problem' is vital not only for understanding the evolution, development and regeneration of bodyplans, but also for synthetic biology efforts that seek to engineer biological shapes. Importantly, the regenerative mechanisms in deer antlers, planarian worms and fiddler crabs can solve an inverse problem: their target morphology can be altered specifically and stably by injuries in particular locations. Here, we discuss the class of models that use pre-specified morphological goal states and propose the existence of a linear encoding of the target morphology, making the inverse problem easy for these organisms to solve. Indeed, many model organisms such as Drosophila, hydra and Xenopus also develop according to nonlinear encodings producing linear encodings of their final morphologies. We propose the development of testable models of regeneration regulation that combine emergence with a top-down specification of shape by linear encodings of target morphology, driving transformative applications in biomedicine and synthetic bioengineering.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".