MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164931354 · doi:10.3732/ajb.1000311

Factors influencing diversification in angiosperms: At the crossroads of intrinsic and extrinsic traits

2011· review· en· W2164931354 on OpenAlexaff
Jana C. Vamosi, Steven M. Vamosi

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Botany · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDiversification (marketing strategy)Biological dispersalLatitudeEcologyLineage (genetic)Species richnessSeed dispersalEvolutionary biologyGeographyDemographyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations81
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of BotanySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207