Critique of parsimony analysis of endemicity as a method of historical biogeography
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it