Bibliographic record
Abstract
Missing data are frequently encountered in molecular phylogenetics, but there has been no accurate distance imputation method available for distance-based phylogenetic reconstruction. The general framework for distance imputation is to explore tree space and distance values to find an optimal combination of output tree and imputed distances. Here I develop a least-square method coupled with multivariate optimization to impute multiple missing distance in a distance matrix or from a set of aligned sequences with missing genes so that some sequences share no homologous sites (whose distances therefore need to be imputed). I show that phylogenetic trees can be inferred from distance matrices with about 10% of distances missing, and the accuracy of the resulting phylogenetic tree is almost as good as the tree from full information. The new method has the advantage over a recently published one in that it does not assume a molecular clock and is more accurate (comparable to maximum likelihood method based on simulated sequences). I have implemented the function in DAMBE software, which is freely available at http://dambe.bio.uottawa.ca.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.043 | 0.176 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".