Estimating Trait-Dependent Speciation and Extinction Rates from Incompletely Resolved Phylogenies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Species traits may influence rates of speciation and extinction, affecting both the patterns of diversification among lineages and the distribution of traits among species. Existing likelihood approaches for detecting differential diversification require complete phylogenies; that is, every extant species must be present in a well-resolved phylogeny. We developed 2 likelihood methods that can be used to infer the effect of a trait on speciation and extinction without complete phylogenetic information, generalizing the recent binary-state speciation and extinction method. Our approaches can be used where a phylogeny can be reasonably assumed to be a random sample of extant species or where all extant species are included but some are assigned only to terminal unresolved clades. We explored the effects of decreasing phylogenetic resolution on the ability of our approach to detect differential diversification within a Bayesian framework using simulated phylogenies. Differential diversification caused by an asymmetry in speciation rates was nearly as well detected with only 50% of extant species phylogenetically resolved as with complete phylogenetic knowledge. We demonstrate our unresolved clade method with an analysis of sexual dimorphism and diversification in shorebirds (Charadriiformes). Our methods allow for the direct estimation of the effect of a trait on speciation and extinction rates using incompletely resolved phylogenies.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".