MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129960338 · doi:10.1002/ar.24603

Development of the chicken skull: A complement to the external staging table of Hamburger and Hamilton

2021· article· en· W3129960338 on OpenAlexafffund
Bassel Arnaout, Kayla E. Lantigua, Erin M. MacKenzie, Iain W. McKinnell, Hillary C. Maddin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Anatomical Record · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCongenital heart defects research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSkullOssificationAnatomyClearanceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Embryonic staging tables provide a standard of developmental stages that can be used by individual investigators and provide approximate time points for the study of developmental phenomena. Surprisingly, despite the presence of a plethora of studies on the chicken skull and its role as a model species in developmental research, a staging table of the development of the chicken skull remains lacking. A detailed photographic staging table of the osseous portion of the chicken skull is thus presented here based on cleared and stained HH stages spanning HH 35 (first appearance of skull ossification) to the final stage before hatching (HH 45). This table documents the development of most of the cranial elements in the skull from the start of ossification until the element takes its final shape. The table shows that the elements of the lower jaw and ventral side of the skull begin ossifying before the skull roof and that most elements take roughly 5 days to reach their final shape, whereas others take up to 9 days (e.g., the frontal). The obtained results lead to several hypotheses about chicken skull development and provide a timeframe for future studies on chicken skull 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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.010

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Anatomical RecordSame topicCongenital heart defects researchFrench-language works237,207