MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PHYLOGENETIC DIVERSIFICATION WITHIN THE SOREX CINEREUS GROUP (SORICIDAE)

2003· article· en· W2180232018 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John R. Demboski, Joseph A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mammalogy · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceArctic Institute of North AmericaU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Forest ServiceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCladeBiologyPhylogenetic treeMonophylyPhyloCodeSorexZoologyTaxonEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phylogenetic relationships among 8 members of the Sorex cinereus group (S. camtschatica, S. cinereus, S. haydeni, S. jacksoni, S. portenkoi, S. preblei, S. pribilofensis, and S. ugyunak) and S. longirostris were estimated using DNA sequence data from 2 mitochondrial genes, cytochrome b (1,140 base pairs) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide dehydrogenase 4 (582 base pairs). S. hoyi, S. monticolus, S. palustris, S. tenellus, S. trowbridgii, and S. vagrans also were included in our analyses. Phylogenetic analyses of the combined data recovered 2 major clades within the species group: a northern clade that includes the Beringian species (S. camtschatica, S. jacksoni, S. portenkoi, S. pribilofensis, and S. ugyunak), S. haydeni, and S. preblei and a southern clade that includes S. cinereus and S. longirostris. Mitochondrial DNA clades generally corresponded to previously identified morphological groups with 2 exceptions: inclusion of S. longirostris with S. cinereus in the southern clade and inclusion of S. preblei within the northern clade. With the exception of the 5 Beringian species, taxa were readily differentiated with strong bootstrap support in our topologies. We also noted phylogenetic concordance with the general ecological affiliations of each species; the northern clade generally includes xeric-affiliated species, whereas the southern clade includes species with mesic habitat affinities.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of MammalogySame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207