MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2114645962 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0569

Convergent exaptation and adaptation in solitary island lizards

2007· article· en· W2114645962 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Poe, Jacob R. Goheen, Erik P. Hulebak

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExaptationConvergent evolutionBiologyAnolisAdaptation (eye)Null modelEvolutionary biologyEcologyConvergence (economics)Similarity (geometry)PhylogeneticsLizardComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Independent evolutionary lineages often display similar characteristics in comparable environments. Three kinds of historical hypotheses could explain this convergence. The first is adaptive and evolutionary: nonrandom patterns may result from analogous evolutionary responses to shared conditions. The second explanation is exaptive and ecological: species may be filtered by their suitability for a particular type of environment. The third potential explanation is a null hypothesis of random colonization from a historically nonrandom source pool. Here we demonstrate that both exaptation and adaptation have produced convergent similarity in different size-related characters of solitary island lizards. Large sexual size dimorphism results from adaptive response to solitary existence; uniform, intermediate size results from ecological filtering of potential colonizers. These results demonstrate the existence of deterministic exaptive convergence and suggest that convergent phenomena may require historical explanations that are ecological as well as evolutionary.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations33
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→