Comparison of whole embryonic development in the duck (Anas platyrhynchos) and goose (Anser cygnoides) with the chicken (Gallus gallus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embryos from aquatic birds are the primary models for the study of flipper development. While some staging of early embryogenesis in duck have been studied, characterization of the stages of the entire embryonic development period in water birds has not been described. This study aimed to establish a comparison of complete morphological development staging for ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) and geese (Anser cygnoides) with the embryonic staging system by Hamburger and Hamilton (HH) for the chicken (Gallus gallus). Our results show that morphological development in the chicken, duck, and goose are similar in the early stages. The major differences occurred after stage 27 of embryonic development, where the beak shape in ducks and geese was wider and longer than in chickens. In addition, the second and third interdigital webs of the hind limb of the chicken were found to be degraded from stage 31, and eventually vanished at stage 35; however, they were retained in ducks and geese. Rapid physical development occurred in the mid-to-late stages in ducks and geese. To our best knowledge, this is the first description of complete embryonic development for the duck and goose. Establishment of an embryonic staging system for duck and goose provides new models for the study of waterfowl development.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".