Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why ‘dreaded’ and by whom? There is more than just an urge to be facetious in my title for this chapter. I have two reasons to dread the fruit fly. First, when I, and other practitioners of dynamic theories of development of my acquaintance, have tried to make some definite contact with experimental biologists, we have of course received diverse reactions from different individuals. But there have also been group characters discernible for people studying particular kinds of organism. And among the groups that I have had contact with, the very large one devoted to the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has seemed, particularly through the 1990s, to be one of the most difficult with which to sustain an interaction. There is, I think, a very sound reason for this, and it is much more sociological than scientific. Through the past half-century, the dynamic theory group has remained quite small, while the fruit fly group started from small beginnings and exploded to many thousands of workers, mainly seeking to identify new genes through their functions as revealed by mutations. That highly competitive and attention-absorbing field tended, I believe, to widen the gap in approaches and attitudes between molecular biologists and macroscopic-scale dynamic theorists that, for the proper advance of developmental biology, should be a shrinking gap.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".