MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064054988 · doi:10.1504/ijbra.2006.010602

Phylogenetic analysis using complete signature information of whole genomes and clustered Neighbour-Joining method

2006· article· en· W2064054988 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiao‐Meng Wu, Xiu‐Feng Wan, Gang Wu, Dong Xu, Guohui Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Bioinformatics Research and Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologyGenomeEvolutionary biologyAmbiguityPhylogeneticsTree (set theory)Multiple sequence alignmentPhylogenetic networkSequence (biology)Computational biologySequence alignmentComputer scienceGeneGeneticsMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new method called Complete Composition Vector (CCV), which is a collection of Composition Vectors (CV), is described to infer evolutionary relationships between species using their complete genomic sequences. Such a method bypasses the complexity of performing multiple sequence alignments and avoids the ambiguity of choosing individual genes for species tree construction. It is expected to effectively retain the rich evolutionary information contained in the whole genomic sequence. The method was applied to infer the evolutionary footprints for several datasets that have been previously studied. The final phylogenies were built by an improved clustered Neighbour-Joining method. The generated phylogenetic trees are highly consistent with taxonomy hierarchy and previous studies, with some biologically interesting disagreements.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations48
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Bioinformatics Research and ApplicationsSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207