A Comparison of Limb Development of the Salamanders Plethodon Cinereus and Ambystoma Mexicanum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tetrapod limbs exhibit a wide variety of developmental variation.Amphibians alone display a fair amount this variation.Here, the development of both limb pairs in the species Plethodon cinereus and Ambystoma mexicanum are compared.Using histology and CT on embryonic and juvenile specimens, there are few observable differences in the relative order of skeletal element appearance, and both species exhibit preaxial polarity.The resolution with which elements' appearance could be examined was constrained by the use of stages established on other features as time points.Histologically, the epithelium of the limb bud appears to differ between the two species.It is possible that the differences in histology relate to difference in primary habitat, and constraints of those habitats.For future work, foundation is laid here for the expansion of Plethodon as a model organism.Additional observations on the normal development of Plethodon limb bones would enhance the presented work.Outside the lab, I would like to acknowledge Ashan Ayanarajan and Martina Boddy, Carlos Braga, Thomas McLoughlin-Coleman, Kimberly Treybus, and Marie-Pierre Nantel.I'd like to call this bunch my 'core' group for the Earth Sciences Department at the end of my time here.I would especially like to thank Ashan and Martina for all the outreach, science communication, and more we've done over the last two years.Having mentioned the outreach that I've done with my friends, most of the opportunities in the department were thanks to Beth McLarty Halfkenny.I must also thank Sheila "McQueen" Thayer for her administrative assistance throughout
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".