Topological and variational modularity: A case study using the pectoral girdle across the <i>Chrosomus eos‐neogaeus</i> hybridization complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modularity and integration are key developmental properties and have remained central in evo-devo research because of how they relate to evolvability. While modularity and integration have commonly been assessed with landmark-based geometric morphometrics (GMM), other methods such as anatomical network analysis (AnNA) are increasingly being explored. Nonetheless, AnNA has seldom been used to assess variability within taxa, and there have been no attempts to verify whether its results are commensurate with GMM. We used the pectoral girdle of members of the Chrosomus eos-neogaeus hybridization complex as a case study system to assess differences between AnNA and GMM-based approaches and discuss how they should be best used. The general anatomy and composition of the pectoral girdle do not vary much within the complex; however, bones within the pectoral girdle show significant diversity in morphology and in the presence of sutures. Indeed, C. neogaeus displays characteristically enlarged coracoids and radials, and bone fusion between the cleithra, coracoids, and radials, while C. eos displays a gracile and unfused pectoral girdle. Hybrids display morphologies that are distinct from both parental species. AnNA detected multiple potential patterns of modularity, and GMM supported similar patterns of modularity across the complex but suggested different trajectories of morphological variation. Altogether, AnNA can be a valuable tool to formulate novel hypotheses in understudied taxa, which may then be tested using GMM, but careful morphological descriptions of skeletal systems are a valuable addition to the interpretation of both AnNA and GMM 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".