MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2190074293 · doi:10.3390/info6040811

Information and Phylogenetic Systematic Analysis

2015· article· en· W2190074293 on OpenAlexafffund
Walter Craig, Jonathon Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsShared Hierarchical Academic Research Computing NetworkMcMaster UniversityFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsMcMaster University
KeywordsCladogramCharacter (mathematics)SynapomorphyPhylogenetic treeMeasure (data warehouse)AutapomorphyTaxonMatrix (chemical analysis)Computer scienceMathematicsCladisticsBiologyData miningPaleontologyGeneticsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information in phylogenetic systematic analysis has been conceptualized, defined, quantified, and used differently by different authors. In this paper, we start with the Shannon Uncertainty Measure information measure I, applying it to cladograms containing only consistent character states. We formulate a general expression for I, utilizing a standard format for taxon-character matrices, and investigate the effect that adding data to an existing taxon-character matrix has on I. We show that I may increase when character vectors that encode autapomorphic or synapomorphic character states are added. However, as added character vectors accumulate, I tends to a limit, which generally is less than the maximum I. We show computationally and analytically that limc→∞ I = log2 t, in which t enumerates taxa and c enumerates characters. For any particular t, upper and lower bounds in I exist. We use our observations to suggest several interpretations about the relationship between information and phylogenetic systematic analysis that have eluded previous, precise recognition.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.432
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformationSame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207