MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165386977 · doi:10.1086/518963

Null Models of Geographic Range Size Evolution Reaffirm Its Heritability

2007· article· en· W2165386977 on OpenAlex
Anthony Waldron

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

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRange (aeronautics)Null modelAllopatric speciationBiologyEvolutionary biologyHeritabilityNull hypothesisGenetic algorithmPhylogenetic treeCharacter evolutionMost recent common ancestorStatisticsEcologyCladeGeneticsMathematicsPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most models of allopatric speciation predict that the two daughter species will have range sizes different from each other's and potentially from that of their common ancestor. However, I find that this difference is less than that expected under a variety of null models of range evolution. Sister species' range values may therefore become more similar in the time following speciation. Greater-than-expected similarity (symmetry) has also been treated as a form of range size heritability. I therefore compare the results of this symmetry approach to a test for phylogenetic signal, using the range sizes of North American birds. I find that range size is heritable under both tests. I suggest that null models for range size heritability should be informed by an explicit model of evolution. Comparative methods may give erroneous results if they fail to take the unusual form of inheritance of range size into account.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.228 · 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