Skeletons of the Eye: An Evolutionary and Developmental Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ocular skeleton, composed of the scleral cartilage and scleral ossicles, is present in many vertebrates. The morphology of the scleral cartilage and ossicles varies within different extant reptiles (including birds) and also varies dramatically from the morphology in extant teleosts. This incredible range of diverse morphologies is the result of millions of years of evolution. Both the position of these elements within the eye and the timing of development vary amongst different vertebrates. While the development of both the scleral cartilage and scleral ossicles is somewhat understood in reptiles and in teleosts, the functional advantage of these elements is still debated. Most reptiles have a multi-component scleral ossicle ring composed of a series of flat bone plates and a scleral cartilage cup lining the retina, some sharks have calcified cartilage plates, and some teleosts have two bones while most others only have a ring of scleral cartilage. The data presented shows that different vertebrates have adapted to similar selective pressures in different ways. However, the reason why sarcopterygians have a series of overlapping bones in the sclera remains unclear. A better understanding of the ocular skeletal diversity in Reptilia as well as a better understanding of the mechanisms of vision within different environments (i.e., air vs. water) and that used by secondarily aquatic organisms is needed. This review discusses the observed variation in morphology and development of the ocular skeleton in the context of evolution and highlights our knowledge gaps in these areas. Anat Rec, 2018. © 2018 American Association for Anatomy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".