MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053410480 · doi:10.1139/b08-058

Phylogenetic patterns and diversification in the caesalpinioid legumesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Issue on Systematics Research.

2008· article· en· W2053410480 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anne Bruneau, Marjorie Mercure, Gwilym P. Lewis, Patrick S. Herendeen

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsEspace pour la vie
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyParaphylyMonophylyCaesalpinioideaeSystematicsBotanyCladeMaximum parsimonyPhylogenetic treeEvolutionary biologyFabaceaeTaxonomy (biology)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subfamily Caesalpinioideae is a paraphyletic grade of 171 genera that comprises the first branches of the Leguminosae and from which are derived the monophyletic subfamilies Mimosoideae and Papilionoideae. We have sequenced the chloroplast matK gene, and the trnL and 3′-trnK introns for 153 genera of caesalpinioid legumes. Parsimony and Bayesian phylogenetic analyses of these data support the monophyly of several major groups within the caesalpinioid legumes: the Cercideae, Detarieae, Detarieae s. str., Prioria , Amherstieae, Dialiinae, Cassia , Caesalpinia , Peltophorum , and Tachigali clades. Relationships among the first branching lineages of the legumes are not well supported, with Cercideae, Detarieae, and the genus Duparquetia alternatively resolved as sister group to all of the legumes. The division of certain large genera (e.g., Caesalpinia s. l., Bauhinia s. l.) into segregate genera generally is supported by our molecular data. Using 18 well-documented fossils as calibration points, fixing the stem node of the legumes at 65 Ma, and using the Penalised Likelihood method, we estimate the crown node of the Leguminosae at 64 Ma and the crown age of each of the major caesalpinioid lineages varying from 34 to 56 Ma. Fossil cross-validation suggests that none of the 18 fossil calibrations is internally inconsistent. Analyses done without fossil calibrations yield much younger divergence times. The age estimates for the Detarieae clade are more sensitive to the presence of calibration points than other caesalpinioid clades, a situation which we attribute to the slow rate of chloroplast DNA evolution in this group.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations280
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207