Morphology and Distribution of Cutaneous Sensory Organs on the Digits of <i>Anolis carolinensis</i> and <i>A. sagrei</i> (Squamata: Dactyloidae) in Relation to the Adhesive Toepads and Their Deployment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cutaneous sensory organs are characteristic of many squamate lineages. Such organs may occur on the surface of scales as button-like, circular protuberances set off from their surroundings by a noticeable boundary, often taking the form of a moat or furrow. They may be relatively unadorned, clad with the surface micro-ornamentation of the scales on which they are carried, or they may carry one or more bristles of varying length and surface ornamentation. Such bristles may extend away from the body of the organ to interface with the surrounding environment or to contact adjacent scales. Cutaneous sensory organs have been physiologically demonstrated to have a mechanoreceptive function but have also been posited to potentially be involved with additional sensory modalities. Their distribution and structure across the body surface has been shown to be unequal, with some regions being much more extensively endowed than others, indicative of regional differential sensitivity. The digits of Anolis (Iguania: Dactyloidae) carry adhesive toepads that are convergent with those of geckos (Gekkota). Geckos exhibit a high density of cutaneous sensory organs on their toepads and their form and distribution has been associated with the operation and control of the toepads during locomotion. Investigation of the form and topographical distribution of cutaneous sensory organs on the toepads of Anolis shows them to be convergent in these attributes with those of geckos and quite distinct from those of the ancestrally padless Iguana (Iguania: Iguanidae). Their location at scale margins and the direction of their bristles towards adjacent scales indicates that the cutaneous sensory organs play an important role in proprioception during toepad deployment in Anolis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".