Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are currently three competing hypotheses seeking to explain the evolutionary origins of modern amphibians. The lepospondyl hypothesis holds that the lysorophian lepospondyls constitute the sister taxon to all lissamphibians. The temnospondyl hypothesis suggests that modern amphibians are most closely related to the dissorophoid temnospondyls. Finally, the polyphyletic hypothesis posits that the modern amphibian orders have separate evolutionary origins from among different groups of Palaeozoic tetrapods. Here, we review the character matrices used in previous studies. These data sets differ significantly in choice of characters. Therefore, we built a matrix based on data from all three hypotheses and analysed key taxa phylogenetically using both Bayesian inference and parsimony. Uncorrected, the supermatrix yielded inconclusive results, demonstrating the presence of at least two phylogenetic optima. When the data were corrected according to new observations on Doleserpeton, Eocaecilia, and other fossil forms, the phylogeny supported the temnospondyl hypothesis of lissamphibian origins. This conclusion is also supported by a careful study of character changes in the individual lineages.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".