MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950513884 · doi:10.1093/molbev/msy104

How the Central American Seaway and an Ancient Northern Passage Affected Flatfish Diversification

2018· article· en· W2950513884 on OpenAlexafffund
Lisa Byrne, François Chapleau, Stéphane Aris‐Brosou

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Biology and Evolution · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic diversity and population structure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCompute CanadaJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsFlatfishBiologyMolecular clockBiological dispersalDiversification (marketing strategy)Range (aeronautics)ArcticExtant taxonEcologyEvolutionary biologyPaleontologyPhylogeneticsFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While the natural history of flatfish has been debated for decades, the mode of diversification of this biologically and economically important group has never been elucidated. To address this question, we assembled the largest molecular data set to date, covering > 300 species (out of ca. 800 extant), from 13 of the 14 known families over nine genes, and employed relaxed molecular clocks to uncover their patterns of diversification. As the fossil record of flatfish is contentious, we used sister species distributed on both sides of the American continent to calibrate clock models based on the closure of the Central American Seaway (CAS), and on their current species range. We show that flatfish diversified in two bouts, as species that are today distributed around the equator diverged during the closure of CAS, whereas those with a northern range diverged after this, hereby suggesting the existence of a postCAS closure dispersal for these northern species, most likely along a trans-Arctic northern route, a hypothesis fully compatible with paleogeographic reconstructions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMolecular Biology and EvolutionSame topicGenetic diversity and population structureFrench-language works237,207