MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145163654 · doi:10.1101/sqb.2009.74.002

Eradicating Typological Thinking in Prokaryotic Systematics and Evolution

2009· review· en· W2145163654 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueCold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTree of life (biology)ProkaryotePopulationEvolutionary biologyBiologyMetagenomicsValue (mathematics)SystematicsAntithesisEpistemologyEcologyPhylogeneticsPhilosophySociologyGeneticsComputer scienceTaxonomy (biology)DemographyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1982, John Maynard Smith called for an evolutionary "New Synthesis" specific for prokaryotes, observing that "population thinking has been well developed for fully half a century, but has yet to be adopted by microbiology" (Maynard Smith 1982). Twenty-seven years later, typological thinking (population thinking's antithesis) still dominates the field. Evidence for this includes the continuing debates on the reality of prokaryotic species, the value of the term "prokaryote," and the significance of the tree of life (TOL). In each case, the unexpected prevalence of interlineage transfer of genetic information has been (or should now be) the catalyst for the final Darwinization of our discipline. With examples from phylogenomics, I argue that "species," "domains," and the "TOL" are reifications that we can do without, especially as genomics dissolves into metagenomics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it