MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W174722727 · doi:10.21425/f5fbg13024

perspective: Causes and consequences of range size variation: the influence of traits, speciation, and extinction

2012· article· en· W174722727 on OpenAlexaff
Steven M. Vamosi, Jana C. Vamosi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers of Biogeography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtinction (optical mineralogy)Genetic algorithmBiologyRange (aeronautics)Variation (astronomy)Diversification (marketing strategy)Evolutionary biologySpecies richnessPhylogenetic treePerspective (graphical)EcologyPaleontologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tremendous variation in species richness observed among related clades across the tree of life has long caught the imagination of biologists. Recently, there has been growing attention paid to the possible contribution of range size variation, either alone or in combination with putative key innovations, to these patterns. Here, we review three related topics relevant to range size evolution, speciation, and extinction. First, we provide a brief overview of the debate surrounding patterns and mechanisms for phylogenetic signal in range size. Second, we discuss some recent findings regarding the joint influence of traits and range size on diversification. Finally, we present the preliminary results of a study investigating whether range size is negatively correlated with contemporary extinction risk in flowering plants.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers of BiogeographySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207