The future of Evo‐Devo: the inaugural meeting of the Pan American Society for evolutionary developmental biology
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
What is the future of evolutionary developmental biology? This question and more were discussed at the inaugural meeting for the Pan American Society for Evolutionary Developmental Biology, held August 5-9, 2015, in Berkeley, California, USA. More than 300 participants attended the first meeting of the new society, representing the current diversity of Evo-Devo. Speakers came from throughout the Americas, presenting work using an impressive range of study systems, techniques, and approaches. Current research draws from themes including the role of gene regulatory networks, plasticity and the role of the environment, novelty, population genetics, and regeneration, using new and emerging techniques as well as traditional tools. Multiple workshops and a discussion session covered subjects both practical and theoretical, providing an opportunity for members to discuss the current challenges and future directions for Evo-Devo. The excitement and discussion generated over the course of the meeting demonstrates the current dynamism of the field, suggesting that the future of Evo-Devo is bright indeed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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