Factors influencing diversification in angiosperms: At the crossroads of intrinsic and extrinsic traits
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies indicate that both key innovations and available area influence species richness in angiosperms. Available area has been observed to have the greatest effect, however, and appears to alter the "carrying capacity" of a lineage rather than alter diversification rates. Here, we review and weigh the evidence of predictors of angiosperm diversification and further dissect how area can place ecological limits on diversification of angiosperms, specifically addressing the following: (1) theoretical mechanisms by which particular intrinsic and extrinsic traits may affect diversification in angiosperm families; (2) evidence that the amount of available area determines the ecological limits on lineages; and (3) geographical distribution of diversification hotspots in angiosperms, concentrating on the effects of zygomorphy, noncontiguous area, and latitude. While we found that dispersal to numerous noncontiguous areas is most important in spurring diversification, diversification of tropical and zygomorphic families appears to be elevated by the generation of more species per given area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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