Critique of parsimony analysis of endemicity as a method of historical biogeography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aim Assess the value of parsimony analysis of endemism as either an a priori (cladistic) and an a posteriori (phylogenetic) method of historical biogeography. Location World‐wide. Methods Parsimony analysis of endemicity (PAE) and Brooks parsimony analysis (BPA). Results Parsimony analysis of endemicity is capable of finding correct and unambiguous area relationships only under scenarios of vicariance in combination with non‐response to vicariance or extinction. An empirical comparison between PAE and BPA, using the poeciliid fish genera Heterandria and Xiphophorus , demonstrates that PAE fails to document much of the historical complexity in this relatively simple system. Main conclusions The a priori assumptions of PAE are far more restrictive than those made by other a priori methods, limiting its utility as a method of cladistic biogeography. The inability of PAE to detect perfect vicariance or biogeographical histories involving dispersal, renders it unsuitable as a method of phylogenetic biogeography.
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 | 0.095 | 0.321 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".