MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798264572 · doi:10.1002/dvg.23103

Germ layers, the neural crest and emergent organization in development and evolution

2018· review· en· W2798264572 on OpenAlexafffund
Brian K. Hall

Bibliographic record

Venuegenesis · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicDevelopmental Biology and Gene Regulation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsNeural crestBiologyVertebrateMesodermMesenchymeNeural plateNeural foldGerm layerEvolutionary developmental biologyEvolutionary biologyAnatomyNeural tubeOrganogenesisGeneticsEmbryoGeneEmbryonic stem cell

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Discovered in chick embryos by Wilhelm His in 1868 and named the neural crest by Arthur Milnes Marshall in 1879, the neural crest cells that arise from the neural folds have since been shown to differentiate into almost two dozen vertebrate cell types and to have played major roles in the evolution of such vertebrate features as bone, jaws, teeth, visceral (pharyngeal) arches, and sense organs. I discuss the discovery that ectodermal neural crest gave rise to mesenchyme and the controversy generated by that finding; the germ layer theory maintained that only mesoderm could give rise to mesenchyme. A second topic of discussion is germ layers (including the neural crest) as emergent levels of organization in animal development and evolution that facilitated major developmental and evolutionary change. The third topic is gene networks, gene co-option, and the evolution of gene-signaling pathways as key to developmental and evolutionary transitions associated with the origin and evolution of the neural crest and neural crest cells.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuegenesisSame topicDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationFrench-language works237,207