MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971755138 · doi:10.1111/ele.13382

Assessing the causes of diversification slowdowns: temperature‐dependent and diversity‐dependent models receive equivalent support

2019· letter· en· W2971755138 on OpenAlexafffund
Fabien L. Condamine, Jonathan Rolland, Hélène Morlon

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcosystem dynamics and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilSeventh Framework ProgrammeUniversity of British ColumbiaAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Diversity (politics)EcologyEnvironmental resource managementBiologyEnvironmental scienceBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diversification rates vary over time, yet the factors driving these variations remain unclear. Temporal declines in speciation rates have often been interpreted as the effect of ecological limits, competition, and diversity dependence, emphasising the role of biotic factors. Abiotic factors, such as climate change, are also supposed to have affected diversification rates over geological time scales, yet direct tests of these presumed effects have mainly been limited to few clades well represented in the fossil record. If warmer climatic periods have sustained faster speciation, this could explain slowdowns in speciation during the Cenozoic climate cooling. Here, we apply state-of-the art diversity-dependent and temperature-dependent phylogenetic models of diversification to 218 tetrapod families, along with constant rate and time-dependent models. We confirm the prevalence of diversification slowdowns, and find as much support for temperature-dependent than diversity-dependent models. These results call for a better integration of these two processes in studies of diversification dynamics.

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)0.001
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 score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations151
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicEcosystem dynamics and resilienceFrench-language works237,207