MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DIVERSITY-DEPENDENT CLADOGENESIS AND TRAIT EVOLUTION IN THE ADAPTIVE RADIATION OF THE AUKS (AVES: ALCIDAE)

2012· article· en· W1527747295 on OpenAlexaff
Jason T. Weir, Sara Mursleen

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladogenesisBiologyAdaptive radiationForagingEcologyCladeEvolutionary biologyTraitNicheEcological nichePhylogenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Through the course of an adaptive radiation, the evolutionary speed of cladogenesis and ecologically relevant trait evolution are expected to slow as species diversity increases, niches become occupied, and ecological opportunity declines. We develop new likelihood-based models to test diversity-dependent evolution in the auks, one of only a few families of seabirds adapted to underwater "flight," and which exhibit a large variety of bill sizes and shapes. Consistent with the expectations of adaptive radiation, we find both a decline in rates of cladogenesis (a sixfold decline) and bill shape (a 64-fold decline) evolution as diversity increased. Bill shape diverged into two clades at the basal cladogenesis event with one clade possessing mostly long, narrow bills used to forage primarily on fish, and the other with short thick bills used to forage primarily on plankton. Following this initial divergence in bill shape, size, a known correlate of both prey size and maximum diving depth, diverged rapidly within each of these clades. These results suggest that adaptive radiation in foraging traits underwent initial divergence in bill shape to occupy different food resources, followed by size differentiation to subdivide each niche along the depth axis of the water column.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.201

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations65
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207