MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157550858 · doi:10.1080/10635150590906046

Biogeographic Interpretation of Splits Graphs: Least Squares Optimization of Branch Lengths

2005· article· en· W2157550858 on OpenAlex
Richard C. Winkworth, David Bryant, Peter J. Lockhart, David Havell, Vincent Moulton

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

VenueSystematic Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMarsden FundMassey University
KeywordsDivergence (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Interpretation (philosophy)Least-squares function approximationPhylogenetic treeMathematical optimizationMathematicsDecompositionAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsBiologyEcologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although most often used to represent phylogenetic uncertainty, network methods are also potentially useful for describing the phylogenetic complexity expected to characterize recent species radiations. One network method with particular advantages in this context is split decomposition. However, in its standard implementation this approach is limited by a conservative criterion for branch length estimation. Here we extend the utility of split decomposition by introducing a least squares optimization technique for correcting branch lengths that may be underestimated by the standard implementation. This optimization of branch lengths is generally expected to improve divergence time estimates calculated from splits graphs. We illustrate the effect of least squares optimization on such estimates using the Australasian Myosotis and the Hawaiian silversword alliance as examples. We also discuss the biogeographic interpretation and limitations of splits graphs.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.285

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.220 · 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