MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular evidence for phylogenetic relationships among buntings and American sparrows (Emberizidae)

2001· article· en· W1993849914 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alessandro Grapputo, Andrea Pilastro, Allan J. Baker, G. Marin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEmberizidaeBiologyPhylogenetic treeCladeZoologyMaximum parsimonyNearctic ecozoneCytochrome bEvolutionary biologySparrowMitochondrial DNATaxonomy (biology)EcologyGeneticsGeneHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To help clarify controversial phylogenetic relationships within the family Emberizidae, we sequenced 1238 bp of mitochondrial DNA from the cytochrome b gene and a flanking portion of ND5. Although the longspurs ( Calcarius ) and the snow buntings ( Plectrophenax ) have been grouped with the Old World buntings ( Emberiza ) in traditional classifications, our molecular phylogenies constructed with maximum likelihood and maximum parsimony place these genera basal to a clade in which the Old World buntings and North American sparrows are sister groups. Contrary to the hypothesis that the radiation within Emberiza is recent following a westward expansion of emberizid stock into Eurasia from North America, we found that the level of genetic divergence among Old World buntings approximates those among different genera in North American sparrows. Thus the radiation of the Emberizidae seems to have occurred at roughly the same time in the Palaearctic and Nearctic. Our results are consistent with earlier analyses of allozymes, but sequences from multiple genes and new morphological analyses are required to fully resolve phylogenetic relationships within the Emberizidae.

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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations40
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207