MétaCan
← all works

Phylogenomics: the beginning of incongruence?

Why is this work in the frame?

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

Canadian affiliationAn author listed a Canadian institution. This is the only route the usual frame has.

Classifier prediction

metacan-v1-d91a1de5be90

Predictions imitate two machine teachers. Scores are not calibrated prevalence probabilities.

Classifier candidate
Not applicable
Classifier consensus
N/A
Teacher imitation scores

Codex

Other design0.943
Not applicable0.005
Observational0.004
Systematic review0.002
Theoretical or conceptual0.000
Bibliometrics0.000
Bench or experimental0.000
Meta-analysis0.000
Open science0.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.000
Case report0.000
Metaresearch0.000
Scholarly communication0.000
Science and technology studies0.000
Research integrity0.000
Qualitative0.000
Simulation or modelling0.000
Randomized trial0.000
Non-randomized trial0.000

Gemma

Not applicable0.932
Observational0.005
Theoretical or conceptual0.001
Bench or experimental0.001
Systematic review0.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.000
Research integrity0.000
Science and technology studies0.000
Open science0.000
Simulation or modelling0.000
Bibliometrics0.000
Non-randomized trial0.000
Meta-analysis0.000
Metaresearch0.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.000
Case report0.000
Qualitative0.000
Scholarly communication0.000
Randomized trial0.000

Machine scores (provisional)

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread
0.286 how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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

Abstract

Until recently, molecular phylogenies based on a single or few orthologous genes often yielded contradictory results. Using multiple genes in a large concatenation was proposed to end these incongruences. Here we show that single-gene phylogenies often produce incongruences, albeit ones lacking statistically significant support. By contrast, the use of different tree reconstruction methods on different partitions of the concatenated supergene leads to well-resolved, but real (i.e. statistically significant) incongruences. Gathering a large amount of data is not sufficient to produce reliable trees, given the current limitation of tree reconstruction methods, especially when the quality of data is poor. We propose that selecting only data that contain minimal nonphylogenetic signals takes full advantage of phylogenomics and markedly reduces incongruence.

Retrieved from PubMed through NCBI EFetch. Structured section labels are preserved.