Phylogenetic analysis of the subfamily Hylodinae (Anura, Leptodactylidae) based on morphological characters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The systematics and phylogenetic relationships of the family Leptodactylidae are controversial as is the intrafamilial phylogeny of the leptodactylids. Here we analyze the relationships of the leptodactylid subfamily Hylodinae. This subfamily has been considered to be monophyletic and composed of three genera, Hylodes, Crossodactylus and Megaelosia. In the present study 49 characters were used, based on different studies on Leptodactylidae phylogeny. Maximum parsimony methods with unweighted and successively weighted characters were used to estimate the phylogeny of the Hylodinae. Upon analysis, the data provided further evidence of the monophyletic status of the three genera, with Megaelosia being the basal genus and the other two genera being sister taxa. The analysis with successive weighting results in a more resolved topology of the species subgroups of the genus Hylodes and separates this genus from Crossodactylus and confirms that the hylodines are monophyletic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".