MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025942236 · doi:10.1086/663681

A Comparative Method for Both Discrete and Continuous Characters Using the Threshold Model

2012· article· en· W2025942236 on OpenAlex
Joseph Felsenstein

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCharacter (mathematics)Markov chain Monte CarloMarkov chainSampling (signal processing)Monte Carlo methodComputer scienceMathematicsAlgorithmStatistical physicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The threshold model developed by Sewall Wright in 1934 can be used to model the evolution of two-state discrete characters along a phylogeny. The model assumes that there is a quantitative character, called liability, that is unobserved and that determines the discrete character according to whether the liability exceeds a threshold value. A Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm is used to infer the evolutionary covariances of the liabilities for discrete characters, sampling liability values consistent with the phylogeny and with the observed data. The same approach can also be used for continuous characters by assuming that the tip species have values that have been observed. In this way, one can make a comparative-methods analysis that combines both discrete and continuous characters. Simulations are presented showing that the covariances of the liabilities are successfully estimated, although precision can be achieved only by using a large number of species, and we must always worry whether the covariances and the model apply throughout the group. An advantage of the threshold model is that the model can be straightforwardly extended to accommodate within-species phenotypic variation and allows an interface with quantitative-genetics models.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.301 · 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