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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".