MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Calcified Integumentary Structures in Anurans

2010· article· en· W57841159 on OpenAlexafffund
Stephanie Delorme, Matthew K. Vickaryous

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAnatomyIntegumentary systemBiologyIntegument

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although often overlooked, the integument of many vertebrates is reinforced by skeletal elements. In anurans these calcified structures include osteoderms, bone‐rich elements, and the lamina calcarea, a calcified, acellular layer that lacks collagen. We investigated the histology of anuran integument with a special focus on taxa developing skeletal elements. When present, the lamina calcarea forms a thin but discrete horizon at the interface between the superficial and deep dermis. This layer is rich in glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and is structurally unlike bone and cartilage. In contrast, anuran osteoderms are composed of cellular bone with limited GAG. A partial ontogenetic series of the tree frog Phyllomedusa bicolor provides the first details of anuran osteoderms development. In P. bicolor osteoderm development begins as a cluster of small calcified centres localized over the head. With continued body growth, osteoderms become larger in size and become distributed across the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the body, and across the limbs. The leaf litter frog Brachytarsophyrys cariensis is unusual in developing both osteoderms (on the dorsal body surface) and a lamina calcarea (on the ventral body surface). Our data shows that anuran integument has the ability to form skeletal elements and suggests that these elements arose in multiple anuran lineages. Grant Funding Source : NSERC

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicAmphibian and Reptile Biology→French-language works237,207→