DETECTING CORRELATION BETWEEN CHARACTERS IN A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITH UNCERTAIN PHYLOGENY
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of accommodating the phylogenetic history of a group when performing a comparative analysis is now widely recognized. The typical approaches either assume the tree is known without error, or they base inferences on a collection of well-supported trees or on a collection of trees generated under a stochastic model of cladogenesis. However, these approaches do not adequately account for the uncertainty of phylogenetic trees in a comparative analysis, especially when data relevant to the phylogeny of a group are available. Here, we develop a method for performing comparative analyses that is based on an extension of Felsenstein's independent contrasts method. Uncertainties in the phylogeny, branch lengths, and other parameters are accommodated by averaging over all possible trees, weighting each by the probability that the tree is correct. We do this in a Bayesian framework and use Markov chain Monte Carlo to perform the high-dimensional summations and integrations required by the analysis. We illustrate the method using comparative characters sampled from Anolis lizards.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it