MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118435402 · doi:10.1093/jhered/esq092

Recent Trends in Molecular Phylogenetic Analysis: Where to Next?

2010· review· en· W2118435402 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Heredity · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhylogenetic treeBiologySequence (biology)Tree (set theory)Data scienceEvolutionary biologyComputational biologyPhylogeneticsComputer scienceGeneticsGeneMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The acquisition of large multilocus sequence data is providing researchers with an unprecedented amount of information to resolve difficult phylogenetic problems. With these large quantities of data comes the increasing challenge regarding the best methods of analysis. We review the current trends in molecular phylogenetic analysis, focusing specifically on the topics of multiple sequence alignment and methods of tree reconstruction. We suggest that traditional methods are inadequate for these highly heterogeneous data sets and that researchers employ newer more sophisticated search algorithms in their analyses. If we are to best extract the information present in these data sets, a sound understanding of basic phylogenetic principles combined with modern methodological techniques are necessary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.291 · 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