MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952612634 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1818058116

Macroevolutionary diversification rates show time dependency

2019· article· en· W2952612634 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Francisco Henao‐Díaz, Luke J. Harmon, Mauro Sugawara, Eliot T. Miller, Matthew W. Pennell

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Dependency (UML)MacroevolutionGeographyEvolutionary biologyEconomicsBiologyBusinessComputer sciencePhylogeneticsArtificial intelligenceGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For centuries, biologists have been captivated by the vast disparity in species richness between different groups of organisms. Variation in diversity is widely attributed to differences between groups in how fast they speciate or go extinct. Such macroevolutionary rates have been estimated for thousands of groups and have been correlated with an incredible variety of organismal traits. Here we analyze a large collection of phylogenetic trees and fossil time series and describe a hidden generality among these seemingly idiosyncratic results: speciation and extinction rates follow a scaling law in which both depend on the age of the group in which they are measured, with the fastest rates in the youngest clades. Using a series of simulations and sensitivity analyses, we demonstrate that the time dependency is unlikely to be a result of simple statistical artifacts. As such, this time scaling is likely a genuine feature of the tree of life, hinting that the dynamics of biodiversity over deep time may be driven in part by surprisingly simple and general principles.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations114
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207