MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2395567374 · doi:10.1385/1-59259-065-9:45

Craniofacial Development and Patterning

2003· review· en· W2395567374 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Harold C. Slavkin, Glen H. Nuckolls, Lillian Shum

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCraniofacial Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsNeural crestCranial neural crestCraniofacialHindbrainBranchial archBiologyAnatomyRhombomereCell biologyChondrogenesisEmbryoGeneticsHox geneCartilageGeneTranscription factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During early craniofacial development, cranial neural crest cells emigrate from seg-mentally distinct divisions of the hindbrain (rhombomeres) to populate the various branchial arches and subsequently differentiate into multiple neuronal and non-neu-ronal cell lineages of the head and neck region. Organ culture of the mandibular portion of the developing first branchial arch ( 1 , 2 ) facilitates investigations of molecular signaling events of crest cell differentiation during chondrogenesis, osteogenesis, odontogenesis, and myogenesis ( 3 - 5 ). In addition, organs explanted in culture are assessable physically by microdissections, implantations, transplantations, and micro-injections, and can be readily manipulated by antisense oligonucleotides strategies, viral delivery, and immunoperturbation methodologies. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.007

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicCraniofacial Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207