Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this overview, we examine approaches to the embryological development of the craniofacial region of avian and rodent embryos. By craniofacial region we mean: externally, the face and head, excluding the caudal pharyngeal arches; internally, the brain, skull, jaws, and facial skeleton, teeth (in rodents), and associated soft tissues, including muscular, vascular, and connective tissues. The terms “avian” and “rodent” are often equated with the domestic fowl (Gallus domesticus), mouse (Mus musculus), and rat (Rattus sp.); most studies of craniofacial development have been performed on these three species, mostly on chick and mouse. Such a model organism approach is unfortunate. It is typical of the type approach of pre-Darwinian biology and negates the richness afforded by comparative and phylogenetic analyses (see refs. 1 and 2), but is perhaps unavoidable, given both the convenience of working with chick and mouse embryos and the breadth of knowledge that has accumulated on these two species. There is a rich literature on aspects of the development of different strains of mice but much of the literature on avian development assumes that all strains of chickens are alike. The major staging tables for the chick (3) does not identify the strain; that for the mouse (4) is based on hybrids between C57BL/6 females and CBA males. We have recently expanded staging tables for murine craniofacial development for several inbred strains (5–8), but comparative analyses are few.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".