MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791130111 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.23456

Morphological integration of anatomical, developmental, and functional postcranial modules in the crab‐eating macaque (<i>Macaca fascicularis</i>)

2018· article· en· W2791130111 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Conaway, Lauren Schroeder, Noreen von Cramon‐Taubadel

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersState University of New York
KeywordsPostcraniaMacaqueBiologyModularity (biology)EvolvabilityEvolutionary biologyForelimbAnatomyNeurosciencePaleontologyTaxon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Integration and modularity reflect the coordinated action of past evolutionary processes and, in turn, constrain or facilitate phenotypic evolvability. Here, we analyze magnitudes of integration in the macaque postcranium to test whether 20 a priori defined modules are (1) more tightly integrated than random sets of postcranial traits, and (2) are differentiated based on mode of definition, with developmental modules expected to be more integrated than functional or anatomical modules. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The 3D morphometric data collected for eight limb and girdle bones for 60 macaques were collated into anatomical, developmental, and functional modules. A resampling technique was used to create random samples of integration values for each module for statistical comparison. RESULTS: Our results found that not all a priori defined modules were more strongly integrated than random samples of postcranial traits and that specific types of modules did not present consistent patterns of integration. Rather, girdle and joint modules were consistently less integrated than limb modules, and forelimb elements were less integrated than hindlimbs. DISCUSSION: The results suggest that morphometrically complex modules tend to be less integrated than simple limb bones, irrespective of the number of available traits. However, differences in integration of the fore- and hindlimb more likely reflects the multitude of locomotory, feeding, and social functions involved. It remains to be tested whether patterns of integration identified here are primate universals, and to what extent they vary depending on phylogenetic or functional factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physical AnthropologySame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207