Bibliographic record
Abstract
A genus-level supertree for early tetrapods is built using a matrix representation of 50 source trees. The analysis of all combined trees delivers a long-stemmed topology in which most taxonomic groups are assigned to the tetrapod stem. A second analysis, which excludes source trees superseded by more comprehensive studies, supports a deep phylogenetic split between lissamphibian and amniote total groups. Instances of spurious groups are rare in both analyses. The results of the pruned second analysis are mostly comparable with those of a recent, character-based and large-scale phylogeny of Palaeozoic tetrapods. Outstanding areas of disagreement include the branching sequence of lepospondyls and the content of the amniote crown group, in particular the placement of diadectomorphs as stem diapsids. Supertrees are unsurpassed in their ability to summarize relationship patterns from multiple independent topologies. Therefore, they might be used as a simple test of the degree of corroboration of nodes in the contributory analyses. However, we urge caution in using them as a replacement for character-based cladograms and for inferring macroevolutionary patterns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".