Testing hypotheses of growth in the developing chicken limb bud
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Morphogenesis is not only a story of genes and phenotypes, but also one of growth and movement. To explain the large‐scale changes in shape and size that the developing vertebrate limb undergoes, a more complete understanding of mechanisms acting between gene expression and the developed phenotype is needed. Recent evidence has indicated that there is an anterior to posterior direction in the relative movement of cells compared to the contour of the chick wing bud at an early stage, HH16 (Hamburger and Hamilton, 1951, Wyngaarden et al., 2010; doi: 10.1242/dev.046987). Although older evidence has indicated that at later stages (HH20–27) there is an opposite posterior to anterior movement of cells relative to the margin of the limb bud (Vargesson et al., 1997; Development 124). Dii injections into the developing chicken wing at various stages were performed to establish the timing and directionality of movements of cells relative to the margin of the developing limb. We found these anterior to posterior movements of cells relative to the movement of the wing margin occur only at a restricted early phase of limb development and posterior to anterior movements are present generally throughout the remainder of limb bud outgrowth. Grant Funding Source : by NSERC, McGill University, and a Canada Research Chair to HCEL
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".