Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Arthropods have an incredible diversity of limbs that are modified for walking, chewing, cleaning, mating, grasping, sensing, and more. Understanding the relationships and evolutionary histories of different limbs is a central task, but their sheer diversity makes this a daunting if not impossible task using morphology alone. Here, the in situ expression patterns and CRISPR-Cas9 phenotypes for the five best-studied leg-patterning genes – Distal-less , Sp6-9 , dachshund , extradenticle , and homothorax – are described for all limbs of the crustacean Parhyale . Crustaceans are well-suited for this task because their limbs are more diverse than those of other arthropods, and each individual possesses a wide range of limb types that are relevant to many other arthropods, living and extinct. These results will a) provide a template for understanding the genetic basis of limb construction in arthropods more generally based on the strong phenotypes that can be obtained with CRISPR-Cas9, and b) contribute to our understanding of the evolution and affinities of highly modified legs like mouthparts and genitalia using molecular methods to complement previous morphological and embryological approaches.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".