MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985622974 · doi:10.1139/z04-108

Phylogenetic position of the small Kashmir flying squirrel, <i>Hylopetes fimbriatus</i> (≡ <i>Eoglaucomys fimbriatus</i>), in the subfamily Pteromyinae

2004· article· en· W1985622974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tatsuo Oshida, Chaudhry M. Shafique, Sohail Barkati, Masatoshi Yasuda, Nor Azman Hussein, Hideki Endo, Hisashi Yanagawa, Ryuichi Masuda

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phylogenetic relationships of flying squirrels (Pteromyinae) were studied by obtaining complete sequence data from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene of eight Old World and two New World flying squirrel species, with special reference to the systematic and phylogenetic status among Hylopetes fimbriatus (Gray, 1837) (≡ Eoglaucomys fimbriatus (Gray, 1837)) from Pakistan, two Glaucomys Thomas, 1908 species from North America, and two Hylopetes Thomas, 1908 species from Southeast Asia. Phylogenetic trees supported clustering of (i) Belomys pearsonii (Gray, 1842), (ii) H. fimbriatus, the Glaucomys species, Hylopetes lepidus (Horsfield, 1823), and Hylopetes phayrei (Blyth, 1859), (iii) species of Pteromys G. Cuvier, 1800, and (iv) species of Petaurista Link, 1795. Early polytomic divergence among the flying squirrel genera could have taken place in the northern part of the Eurasian continent. The unclear divergence between the Old and New World flying squirrels shows that divergence among flying squirrel genera could have occurred before the formation of the Bering Strait. Hylopetes fimbriatus was more closely related to the two Glaucomys species than to H. lepidus or H. phayrei, supporting placement of the species fimbriatus in the monotypic genus Eoglaucomys Howell, 1915.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207