Understanding mammalian evolution using Bayesian phylogenetic inference
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".