Bending strategies of convergently evolved, articulated coralline algae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of uncalcified genicula in upright calcified corallines has occurred at least three times independently, resulting in articulated corallines within Corallinoideae, Lithophylloideae, and Metagoniolithoideae. Genicula confer flexibility to otherwise rigid thalli, and the localization of bending at discrete intervals amplifies bending stress in genicular tissue. Genicular morphology must, therefore, be balanced between maintaining flexibility while mitigating or resisting stress. Genicula in the three articulated lineages differ in both cellular construction and development, which may result in different constraints on morphology. By studying the interaction between flexibility and morphological variation in multiple species, we investigate whether representatives of convergently evolving clades follow similar strategies to generate mechanically successful articulated fronds. By using computational models to explore different bending strategies, we show that there are multiple ways to generate flexibility in upright corallines but not all morphological strategies are mechanically equivalent. Corallinoids have many joints, lithophylloids have pliant joints, and metagoniolithoids have longer joints-while these strategies can lead to comparable thallus flexibility, they also lead to different levels of stress amplification in bending. Moreover, genicula at greatest risk of stress amplification are typically the strongest, universally mitigating the trade-off between flexibility and stress reduction.
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) | 0.014 | 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".