Phylogenetic relationships in the monocot order Commelinales, with a focus on PhilydraceaeThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To characterize higher-order phylogenetic relationships among the five families of Commelinales, we surveyed multiple plastid loci from exemplar taxa sampled broadly from the order, and from other major monocot lineages. Phylogenetic inferences in Commelinales using parsimony and likelihood methods are congruent, and we find strong support for most aspects of higher-order relationship in the order. We obtain moderately strong support for the local placement of Philydraceae, a family whose position has proven particularly difficult to infer in previous studies. Commelinaceae and Hanguanaceae are sister taxa, and together they are the sister group of a clade consisting of Haemodoraceae, Philydraceae, and Pontederiaceae; Haemodoraceae and Pontederiaceae are also sister taxa. Our sampling of Philydraceae includes all three or four genera in the family; we identify Philydrella as the sister group of a Helmholtzia–Philydrum clade, a resolution that is potentially consistent with several aspects of morphology.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".