MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168888069 · doi:10.1242/dev.099994

Embryonic bauplans and the developmental origins of facial diversity and constraint

2014· article· en· W2168888069 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan M. Young, Diane Hu, Alexis Lainoff, Francis J. Smith, Raúl E. Díaz, Abigail S. Tucker, Paul A. Trainor, Richard A. Schneider, Benedikt Hallgrímsson, Ralph Marcucio

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCleft Lip and Palate Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchLouisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
KeywordsBiologyEvolutionary biologyMorphogenesisDevelopmental biologyAmnioteIn silicoEpigeneticsConvergent evolutionPhenotypeVariation (astronomy)GeneticsPhylogeneticsGeneVertebrate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A central issue in biology concerns the presence, timing and nature of phylotypic periods of development, but whether, when and why species exhibit conserved morphologies remains unresolved. Here, we construct a developmental morphospace to show that amniote faces share a period of reduced shape variance and convergent growth trajectories from prominence formation through fusion, after which phenotypic diversity sharply increases. We predict in silico the phenotypic outcomes of unoccupied morphospaces and experimentally validate in vivo that observed convergence is not due to developmental limits on variation but instead from selection against novel trajectories that result in maladaptive facial clefts. These results illustrate how epigenetic factors such as organismal geometry and shape impact facial morphogenesis and alter the locus of adaptive selection to variation in later developmental events.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations127
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopmentSame topicCleft Lip and Palate ResearchFrench-language works237,207