Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammals have remarkably diverse limb proportions hypothesized to have evolved adaptively in the context of locomotion and other behaviors. Mechanistically, evolutionary diversity in limb proportions is the result of differential limb bone growth. Longitudinal limb bone growth is driven by the process of endochondral ossification, under the control of the growth plates. In growth plates, chondrocytes undergo a tightly orchestrated life cycle of proliferation, matrix production, hypertrophy, and cell death/transdifferentiation. This life cycle is highly conserved, both among the long bones of an individual, and among homologous bones of distantly related taxa, leading to a finite number of complementary cell mechanisms that can generate heritable phenotype variation in limb bone size and shape. The most important of these mechanisms are chondrocyte population size in chondrogenesis and in individual growth plates, proliferation rates, and hypertrophic chondrocyte size. Comparative evidence in mammals and birds suggests the existence of developmental biases that favor evolutionary changes in some of these cellular mechanisms over others in driving limb allometry. Specifically, chondrocyte population size may evolve more readily in response to selection than hypertrophic chondrocyte size, and extreme hypertrophy may be a rarer evolutionary phenomenon associated with highly specialized modes of locomotion in mammals (e.g., powered flight, ricochetal bipedal hopping). Physical and physiological constraints at multiple levels of biological organization may also have influenced the cell developmental mechanisms that have evolved to produce the highly diverse limb proportions in extant mammals. This article is categorized under: Establishment of Spatial and Temporal Patterns > Regulation of Size, Proportion, and Timing Comparative Development and Evolution > Regulation of Organ Diversity Comparative Development and Evolution > Organ System Comparisons Between Species.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".