Congruence between chondrification and ossification sequences during caudal skeleton development: a Moxostomatini case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontogeny can be studied either in terms of size and shape changes (i.e., traditional view of heterochrony) or developmental sequences. However, only a few studies have focused on the caudal skeleton of catostomid species and its developmental sequence value in systematics especially among closely related taxa. The early ontogenetic development of the caudal skeleton of the endangered catostomid copper redhorse (Moxostoma hubbsi, Ostariophysii, Moxostomatini) endemic to south eastern Canada and two closely related sympatric species, M. anisurum and M. macrolepidotum, was studied with cleared and double stained specimens. This study provides the first morphological description of the caudal skeleton of M. hubbsi as well as its developmental sequences (i.e., chondrification and ossification sequences). Congruence between chondrification and ossification sequences is tested intraspecifically and interspecifically for the three Moxostoma species. Intraspecific comparisons exhibit a weak congruence between both sequences for each Moxostoma species. There is a strong interspecific congruence among chondrification sequences and among ossification sequences. Phylogenetic and functional constraints might be responsible for the canalization of the chondrification and ossification sequences. Because of the weak intraspecific
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".