MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005064829 · doi:10.1191/0309133306pp496pr

Molecular biogeography in 2005: back to the future

2006· article· en· W2005064829 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel R. Brooks

Bibliographic record

VenueProgress in Physical Geography Earth and Environment · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Evolutionary biologyBiogeographyMitochondrial DNAGrowth spurtDimension (graph theory)BiologyPhylogeneticsMolecular phylogeneticsEcologyPaleontologyGeneticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cosmologist Stephen Hawking hasdubbed the twenty-first century the centuryof complexity. Biogeography has experienceda significant growth spurt in the past yearincorporating evolutionary complexity to adegree previously only imagined. Most of thisgrowth has been in the area of historical bio-geography, that is, studies encompassing thegeographic context of evolution. The princi-ples and theories, and methods of analysis,were not developed by molecular biologistsand are not constrained to molecular biology.Molecular data, however, add an essentialempirical dimension to this fascinating area ofresearch.As in previous recent years, the greatestnumber of publications and the greatestamount of effort by molecular biologists inbiogeography has been in the area called phy-logeography (see review by Riddle andHafner, 2004). Riddle (2005) discussed threeareas of research that are of especial interestto phylogeographers at the moment. The firstof these involves the ongoing controversyover the utility of mitochondrial DNA(mtDNA) in evolutionary studies. A growingnumber of systematists question the utility ofmtDNA for phylogeny reconstruction. Boththe high rate of evolutionary turnover andmaternal-only pattern of inheritance mayproduce incongruence between mtDNAgene trees and species phylogenies; for an excellent discussion, see Taggart

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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.444

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProgress in Physical Geography Earth and EnvironmentSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207