MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W296063360 · doi:10.5358/hsj.23.7

Molecular Phylogeny of the Genus Acanthosaura (Agamidae)

2004· article· en· W296063360 on OpenAlexaff
Svetlana Kalyabina-Hauf, Natalia B. Ananjeva, Ulrich Joger, Peter Lenk, Robert W. Murphy, Bryan L. Stuart, Nikolai L. Orlov, Cuc Thu Ho, Michaël Wink

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Herpetology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAgamidaeCladeParaphylySister groupZoologyGenusCytochrome bLineage (genetic)Molecular phylogeneticsPhylogeneticsEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeLizardGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A 900bp fragment of mitochondrial cytochrome b was sequenced from 63 specimens of the arboreal agamid lizard genus Acanthosaura from Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar (Burma), Thailand and Malaysia, representing all four currently recognized species. A hypothesis of maternal relationships was generated based on a maximum parsimony analysis of 44 different haplotypes. Pseudocalotes and Calotes were used as outgroup taxa. The genealogical analyses of the cytochrome b sequences recovered four lineages represented by A. armata, A. capra, A. crucigera, and A. lepidogaster. A fifth lineage consisted of one specimen from Ngoc Linh, Vietnam that was considered to be A. lepidogaster; however, recognizing it as such would render A. lepidogaster paraphyletic. Acanthosaura crucigera consisted of two clades. One of these clades contains cysteine in a portion of its cytochrome b, and is the sister group of all other species of Acanthosaura. In turn, the second clade of A. crucigera formed the sister group of A. armata, A. capra, and A. lepidogaster. A clade containing A. armata, A. capra and the sample from Ngoc Linh, Vietnam was the sister group to A. lepidogaster.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent HerpetologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207