MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2399927024 · doi:10.1002/tax.581007

Taxonomy was the foundation of Darwin's evolution

2009· article· en· W2399927024 on OpenAlex

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

VenueTaxon · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarwin (ADL)CopernicusDarwinismEpistemologyPhilosophyNatural selectionCharles darwinBranching (polymer chemistry)Natural scienceModern evolutionary synthesisGenealogyEvolutionary biologyPaleontologyHistoryBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)AstrobiologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Darwin's belief in branching evolution was based upon his familiarity with the taxonomy of his day. Facts from biogeography, embryology, and paleontology acquired deep significance because biologists had come to believe that natural classification expressed real relationships. Although Charles Darwin's presentation of his theory in the Origin of Species , as well as descriptions of Darwinism after the Modern Synthesis of the 1940s, imply that establishing the causal role of natural selection was essential to proving that evolution has occurred, this is contradicted by Darwin's personal experience and by his own words. It is helpful to compare the history and logical structure of Darwin's revolutionary theory to the Copernican Revolution, for the moving Earth was recognized long before Newton identified causes to explain its motion. Copernicus saw that fixing the Sun as the center of planetary motion explained the appearance of the heavens better than the Ptolemaic system did, and Darwin saw that branching evolution explains the "truly wonderful fact" that a hierarchy of nested groups appears natural.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.146 · 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