A comparison of a discovery‐based and an event‐based method of historical biogeography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim The event‐based method Dispersal‐Vicariance Analysis (DIVA) is compared with the discovery‐based method Brooks Parsimony analysis (BPA). Location South‐western USA, Mexico and northern Central America. Methods Results of DIVA of phylogenetic trees for six clades of birds inhabiting seven areas in the south‐western US, Mexico and northern Central America are compared with those of BPA for the same data set. Results Both approaches identify the same vicariant elements but differ in the way they treat dispersal. DIVA places such elements in one general ‘dispersal’ category, while BPA identifies different forms of dispersal, including peripheral isolates speciation (speciation by dispersal), post‐speciation dispersal, non‐response to a vicariance event, secondary contact between congeners (and the potential for reinforcement completing speciation) and potential extinction resulting from competition between a resident and a colonizing congener. Main conclusions BPA is more sensitive than DIVA with respect to the different possible manifestations of geographical dispersal. Despite substantial dispersal, avian communities in these areas manifest substantial historical structuring.
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".