MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111414304 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000602

Resolving Difficult Phylogenetic Questions: Why More Sequences Are Not Enough

2011· article· en· W2111414304 on OpenAlexafffund
Hervé Philippe, Henner Brinkmann, Dennis V. Lavrov, D. Timothy J. Littlewood, Michaël Manuel, Gert Wörheide, Denis Baurain

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAgence Nationale de la RechercheBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPhylogenomicsBiologyPhylogenetic treeTree of life (biology)InferenceEvolutionary biologyPhylogeneticsGenomeDNA sequencingSequence (biology)Computational biologyGeneticsGeneArtificial intelligenceCladeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Perspective section provides experts with a forum

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)0.063
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0630.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0110.037
Open science0.0070.007
Research integrity0.0100.018
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.005

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1,169
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207