Pluripotency of a founding field: rebranding developmental biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of developmental biology has declined in prominence in recent decades, with off-shoots from the field becoming more fashionable and highly funded. This has created inequity in discovery and opportunity, partly due to the perception that the field is antiquated or not cutting edge. A 'think tank' of scientists from multiple developmental biology-related disciplines came together to define specific challenges in the field that may have inhibited innovation, and to provide tangible solutions to some of the issues facing developmental biology. The community suggestions include a call to the community to help 'rebrand' the field, alongside proposals for additional funding apparatuses, frameworks for interdisciplinary innovative collaborations, pedagogical access, improved science communication, increased diversity and inclusion, and equity of resources to provide maximal impact to the community.
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 | 0.058 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.035 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".