MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154024134 · doi:10.1002/nla.337

Irreversible Markov processes for phylogenetic models

2003· article· en· W2154024134 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueNumerical Linear Algebra with Applications · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarkov chainMarkov processTime reversibilityMarkov modelMathematicsDiversification (marketing strategy)Process (computing)Computer scienceAlgorithmStatistical physicsTheoretical computer scienceApplied mathematicsMathematical economicsMarkov propertyStatisticsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A frequently used model in phylogenetics uses a discrete Markov process to model molecular drift as a cause of evolutionary diversification. Predictions are often based on eigenvalue computations which, we argue, only make sense if the process is reversible. Since there is no evidence (to our knowledge) to support the reversible nature of the process, a re‐examination is made of the model and necessary algorithms with emphasis on irreversible processes. The paper includes careful discussion of the underlying Markov processes, careful distinction between the properties of reversible and irreversible processes (including earlier widely accepted analysis) all in the language of linear algebra, a new least squares approach to data adjustments, and numerical examples. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.384

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.215 · 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