Understanding mammalian evolution using Bayesian phylogenetic inference
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
ABSTRACT 1. Phylogenetic trees are critical in addressing evolutionary hypotheses; however, the reconstruction of a phylogeny is no easy task. This process has recently been made less arduous by using a Bayesian statistical approach. This method offers the advantage that one can determine the probability of some hypothesis (i.e. a phylogeny), conditional on the observed data (i.e. nucleotide sequences). 2. By reconstructing phylogenies using Bayes’ theorem in combination with Markov chain Monte Carlo, phylogeneticists are able to test hypotheses more quickly compared with using standard methods such as neighbour‐joining, maximum likelihood or parsimony. Critics of the Bayesian approach suggest that it is not a panacea, and argue that the prior probability is too subjective and the resulting posterior probability is too liberal compared with maximum likelihood. 3. These issues are currently debated in the arena of mammalian evolution. Recently, proponents and opponents of the Bayesian approach have constructed the mammalian phylogeny using different methods under different conditions and with a variety of parameters. These analyses showed the robustness (or lack of) of the Bayesian approach. In the end, consensus suggests that Bayesian methods are robust and give essentially the same answer as maximum likelihood methods but in less time. 4. Approaches based on fossils and molecules typically agree on ordinal‐level relationships among mammals but not on higher‐level relationships, as Bayesian analyses recognize the African radiation, Afrotheria, and the two Laurasian radiations, Laurasiatheria and Euarchontoglires, whereas fossils did not predict Afrotheria.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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