MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Molecular phylogeny of the New World Dipsadidae (Serpentes: Colubroidea): a reappraisal

2012· article· en· W2054941613 on OpenAlexaff
Felipe G. Grazziotin, Hussam Zaher, Robert W. Murphy, Gustavo Scrocchi, Marco Altamirano-Benavides, Ya‐Ping Zhang, Sandro L. Bonatto

Bibliographic record

VenueCladistics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
FundersChinese Academy of Sciences
KeywordsBiologyMonophylyZoologyPhylogenetic treeTaxonGenusCladisticsPhylogeneticsMaximum parsimonyMolecular phylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyEcologyGeneGeneticsClade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a phylogenetic analysis of the New World dipsadids based on an expanded data matrix that includes 246 terminal taxa including 196 dipsadids. The species are sampled for eight genes (12S, 16S, cytb, nd2, nd4, bdnf, c-mos, rag2). The data are explored using two distinct optimality procedures-maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood-and two alignment strategies-dynamic homology and static homology. Two previously unsampled dipsadid genera, Sordellina and Rhachidelus, are now included in the analysis. The definitions of the genera, Erythrolamprus, Clelia, Hypsirhynchus, Philodryas and Phimophis, and the tribes Alsophiini, Echinantherini and Conophiini, are revised. In order to maintain monophyly, the genus Umbrivaga is synonymized with Erythrolamprus, and two new genera are erected to accommodate Phimophis iglesiasi and Clelia rustica, as well as their closely related species. The West Indian genera Schwartzophis, Darlingtonia, Antillophis and Ocyophis are resurrected. © The Willi Hennig Society 2012.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations220
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCladisticsSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207