Morphological Criteria for Staging Near‐Hatching Embryos of the Domesticated Mallard ( <i>Anas platyrhynchos</i> ) and Swan Goose ( <i>Anser cygnoides)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studying avian embryology necessitates reliable and precise staging tables-descriptions of embryonic features appearing during development that are used to approximate the extent of embryonic development from fertilisation to hatching. Staging tables for waterfowl (Anseriformes) have previously been established based on morphological features from fertilisation to approximately 10 days before hatching. Embryonic changes over the final 10 days of pre-hatching development have also been documented and proposed as useful staging criteria. However, the reliability of these changes-which focus on the size of the bill and middle toes-as useful staging criteria across different waterfowl breeds has not been fully examined. To evaluate the reliability of these criteria for staging near-hatching embryos, we examined 27 embryos of Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and Swan Goose (Anser cygnoides). Comparisons with previously published data revealed that size variation within the same developmental stage across breeds is equivalent to within-breed variation across different stages, suggesting limited reliability of bill and middle toe size for staging waterfowl embryos. Consequently, we devised novel staging criteria for waterfowl based on four easily measurable morphological traits and show that these criteria allow correct stage identification with over 70% accuracy. Our results highlight the importance of quantifying staging accuracy for improving the reliability of embryonic staging tables.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".