MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888758566 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2017-0281

Microscopy and development of a remarkable pitted quill from the thin-spined porcupine, <i>Chaetomys</i> <i>subspinosus</i>

2018· article· en· W2888758566 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
David M. F. Chapman, Gastón Andrés Fernandez Giné, Uldis Roze

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSkin and Cellular Biology Research
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersInstituto Chico Mendes de Conservação da BiodiversidadeCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorLakehead UniversityCity University of New York
KeywordsViral tegumentScanning electron microscopeUltrastructureBiologyAnatomyLayer (electronics)Thin layerBiophysicsMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scanning electron microscopy shows that the quill surface from the thin-spined porcupine (Chaetomys subspinosus (Olfers, 1818)) has several regional cuticular patterns of which the most expansive is highly pitted with 4 μm wide pores leading to pits, which in turn communicate circumferentially via tunnels to neighboring pits. The cell unit of the pitted layer is a hexagonal or pentagonal prism, the “pitted fibrillous cuticular cell” (PFCC), which has a superficial pitted cuticular scale derived part with an underlying part packed with fine fibrils and the nucleus. The scaled part has about six scales, which swell and fuse except where raised cuticular scales from the inner root sheath intervene. This unique and complicated cell soon dies even while below the skin’s surface during its development. The raised scale-bearing cells of the inner root sheath leave their imprints on the PFCC’s surface, thus indicating that the quill’s pitted layer is at one time soft. Histochemistry, energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry, and Fourier transform infrared spectrometry show that the PFCC is keratinous.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicSkin and Cellular Biology ResearchFrench-language works237,207