MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diversification of the North American <i>Doellingeria-Eucephalus</i> Clade (Astereae: Asteraceae) Inferred from Molecular and Morphological Evidence

2019· article· en· W2990107757 on OpenAlexaff
Geraldine A. Allen, Luc Brouillet, John C. Semple, Heidi J. Guest, Robert G. Underhill

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Botany · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Diversity and Evolution
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCladeSubcladeBiologyLineage (genetic)Evolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeSister groupMolecular phylogeneticsPhylogeneticsZoologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— Doellingeria and Eucephalus form the earliest-diverging clade of the North American Astereae lineage. Phylogenetic analyses of both nuclear and plastid sequence data show that the Doellingeria-Eucephalus clade consists of two main subclades that differ from current circumscriptions of the two genera. Doellingeria is the sister group to E. elegans , and the Doellingeria + E. elegans subclade in turn is sister to the subclade containing all remaining species of Eucephalus . In the plastid phylogeny, the two subclades are deeply divergent, a pattern that is consistent with an ancient hybridization event involving ancestral species of the Doellingeria-Eucephalus clade and an ancestral taxon of a related North American or South American group. Divergence of the two Doellingeria-Eucephalus subclades may have occurred in association with northward migration from South American ancestors. We combine these two genera under the older of the two names, Doellingeria , and propose 12 new combinations (10 species and two varieties) for all species of Eucephalus .

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BotanySame topicPlant Diversity and EvolutionFrench-language works237,207