Nonrandom extinction leads to elevated loss of angiosperm evolutionary history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phylogenetic clustering of extinction may jeopardize the existence of entire families and genera, which can result in elevated reductions of evolutionary history (EH), trait diversity, and ecosystem functioning. Analyses of globally threatened birds and mammals suggest current extinction threats will result in a much higher loss of EH than random extinction scenarios, while the analyses of the taxonomical distribution of regionally rare plants find the opposite pattern. The disproportionately high number of rare plant species within species-rich families potentially suggests that lower losses of plant EH will be sustained than expected under random extinction. We show that at a global scale, this is not the case. Species-poor (especially monotypic) angiosperm families are more often at risk of extinction than expected. Because these high-risk species-poor families are as evolutionarily distinct as other families, the expected family-level EH plausibly lost in the next 100 years exceeds that predicted from random extinction by up to approximately 1165 million years.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".