Evolution of shell apertural barriers in viviparous land snails (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Clausiliidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Apertural barriers in the snail shell were frequently associated with adaptation against predators or with reducing water loss. Yet formation of teeth occluding the aperture is costly and potentially precludes life-bearing reproduction. In viviparous species, a trade-off between the shell aperture size and the embryo shell size at birth is expected. This hypothesis was tested in clausiliids, land snails with strong apertural barriers, that displayed a range of reproductive strategies (oviparity, egg retention, viviparity). We assessed their three-dimensional internal shell morphology by means of X-ray microcomputed tomography (XMT). The data were later analysed with a specially designed algorithm that mimics the movement of the spherical embryonic shell in the lumen of the parental shell. It appeared that viviparous reproduction required the widening of the passage through the ultimate whorl, but that did not necessarily lead to a reduction of apertural barriers. This provides an example of evolutionary compromise between enhanced fitness of the offspring owing to a long gestation period and survival of the parent. Clausiliids might be selected for viviparity only if other selective forces were released, e.g., in areas where desiccation was not a major threat. This hypothesis is in congruence with the distribution of viviparous clausiliids in Europe.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".