Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genomic and transcriptomic analyses show that sponges possess a large repertoire of genes associated with neuronal processes in other animals, but what is the evidence these are used in a coordination or sensory context in sponges? The very different phylogenetic hypotheses under discussion today suggest very different scenarios for the evolution of tissues and coordination systems in early animals. The sponge genomic 'toolkit' either reflects a simple, pre-neural system used to protect the sponge filter or represents the remnants of a more complex signalling system and sponges have lost cell types, tissues and regionalization to suit their current suspension-feeding habit. Comparative transcriptome data can be informative but need to be assessed in the context of knowledge of sponge tissue structure and physiology. Here, I examine the elements of the sponge neural toolkit including sensory cells, conduction pathways, signalling molecules and the ionic basis of signalling. The elements described do not fit the scheme of a loss of sophistication, but seem rather to reflect an early specialization for suspension feeding, which fits with the presumed ecological framework in which the first animals evolved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it