MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

TESTING HYPOTHESES ABOUT ECOLOGICAL SPECIALIZATION USING PHYLOGENETIC TREES

2005· article· en· W2176183558 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrik Nosil, Arne Ø. Mooers

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSimon Fraser University
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeEcologyPhylogenetic comparative methodsEvolutionary biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often assumed that ecological specialization represents an evolutionary "dead-end" that limits further evolution. Maximum-likelihood (ML) analyses on phylogenies for 15 groups of phytophagous insects revealed that high transition rates both to and from specialization occurred, but that the mean ratio of rates was significantly biased toward a higher rate to specialization. Here we explore the consequences of the fact that transition rates inferred by ML are affected not only by the distribution, but also by the frequency, of character states. Higher rates to the more common state were inferred in the analyses of Nosil (2002), in similar studies published since 2002, and in a small set of simulations. Thus, the ratio of the rate toward versus away from specialization was strongly, positively correlated with the proportion of specialist species at the tips of the phylogeny and whether transitions away from specialization occur remains unclear. Here we reexamine these data using methods that do not rely on directly comparing transition rates. Maximum-likelihood analyses show that models with no transitions in one direction (e.g., irreversible evolution as predicted by the "specialist as dead end" framework) are usually strongly rejected, independent of the proportion of specialists at the tips. Ancestral state reconstruction revealed two instances where generalists were unambiguously derived from specialists. Transition rates would need to biased 100-fold and 5000-fold toward specialization to reconstruct a history where these shifts from specialization toward generalization do not occur. The general conclusions of Nosil (2002) appear to hold; transitions in either direction likely occur such that specialization does not always limit further evolution. Most generally, inferences regarding character evolution can be strengthened by comparing models of character change and examining ancestor states, rather than only comparing parameter values.

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)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations148
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207