Revisiting kinorhynch segmentation: variation of segmental patterns in the nervous system of three aberrant species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kinorhynch segmentation differs from the patterns found in Chordata, Arthropoda and Annelida which have coeloms and circulatory systems. Due to these differences and their obsolete status as 'Aschelminthes', the microscopic kinorhynchs are often not acknowledged as segmented bilaterians. Yet, morphological studies have shown a conserved segmental arrangement of ectodermal and mesodermal organ systems with spatial correspondence along the anterior-posterior axis. However, a few aberrant kinorhynch lineages present a worm-like body plan with thin cuticle and less distinct segmentation, and thus their study may aid to shed new light on the evolution of segmental patterns within Kinorhyncha. RESULTS: Here we found the nervous system in the aberrant Cateria styx and Franciscideres kalenesos to be clearly segmental, and similar to those of non-aberrant kinorhynchs; hereby not mirroring their otherwise aberrant and posteriorly shifted myoanatomy. In Zelinkaderes yong, however, the segmental arrangement of the nervous system is also shifted posteriorly and misaligned with respect to the cuticular segmentation. CONCLUSIONS: The morphological disparity together with the distant phylogenetic positions of F. kalenesos, C. styx and Z. yong support a convergent origin of aberrant appearances and segmental mismatches within Kinorhyncha.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".