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
Abstract In this contribution, I identify possible biotic elements of reptiles of China using biotic element analysis. I test whether the vicariance model could significantly shape reptilian current distribution patterns. My results show that dispersal is prevailing for reptiles in China. There are four major biotic elements in reptilian distribution, which are East Xizang, Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, Taiwan and Hainan, respectively. The test of distributional areas is significantly more clustered than expected by chance, while in another test that closely related species are homogeneously distributed across biotic elements cannot be rejected. Therefore I argued that vicariance might be one of the key processes in patterning reptilian distribution in China. In addition, I develop an improved biotic element analysis in biogeographic studies, by performing biotic element analysis in an iterative manner in order to diagnose more geographically restricted elements until no noise components found. The importance of antecedent selection of distributional data for the subsequent analysis is also discussed. Besides, my study indicates that biodiversity hotspots are not fully overlapped with areas of endemism for reptilians in East Asia.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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