Watching development: an easy ex ovo culturing method to directly observe late‐staged chicken embryos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to view an embryo in vivo during development is important for the teaching of developmental biology. Viewing vertebrate embryos that are protected by a shell presents a challenge. Researchers have developed techniques to grow chicken embryos outside of their shell yet this method has typically focused on the study of relatively young embryos. We have optimized the ex ovo culturing method so that embryos can be maintained for the majority of embryonic development (until at least stage HH41), enabling students to directly observe many of the aspects of development over time (e.g. limb development, eye development, etc). This technique is suitable for introductory and advanced developmental biology, embryology and anatomy classes. For advanced classes, this culturing technique enables access to late stage embryos in order to perform manipulations. An example of a manipulation that can be performed on shell‐less embryos is the implantation of beads with inhibitors in order to gain further understanding of the molecular pathways involved in the development of anatomical structures. After any manipulation, the chamber can be sealed and the embryo can be cultured further. This method enables the direct observation of normal development and manipulated development.
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 | 0.001 | 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".