MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047213212 · doi:10.1163/187631206788831407

Morphology, molecules and fritillaries: approaching a stable phylogeny for Argynnini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae)

2006· article· en· W2047213212 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew V. Z. Brower, Niklas Wahlberg, Thomas J. Simonsen, R. de Jong

Bibliographic record

VenueInsect Systematics & Evolution · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersDivision of Environmental Biology
KeywordsBiologyNymphalidaeMonophylyCladePhylogenetic treeLepidoptera genitaliaPhylogeneticsEntomologyTribeRobustness (evolution)Evolutionary biologyZoologyEcologyGeneGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We examine the phylogenetic relationships among 29 species of Argynnini based on 141 previously published morphological characters and new data from the mitochondrial gene COI and the two nuclear genes EF-1a and wingless. We investigate the stability and robustness of the resulting phylogenetic hypotheses through various combinations of the 4 functionally separate datasets. Increasing the number of datasets in combined analyses led to increased support for clades, sometimes substantially. We find that the tribe Argynnini is a well-supported, robust, monophyletic clade with the following internal subtribal structure: (Euptoietina (Yrameina (Boloriina Argynnina))). Our analyses support the classification of argynnine species into six robust and stable genera: Euptoieta, Yramea, Boloria, Issoria, Brenthis and Argynnis. We suggest that for moderate amounts of data, a total evidence approach is always best.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsect Systematics & EvolutionSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207