Exploration of Plastid Phylogenomic Conflict Yields New Insights into the Deep Relationships of Leguminosae
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylogenomic analyses have helped resolve many recalcitrant relationships in the angiosperm tree of life, yet phylogenetic resolution of the backbone of the Leguminosae, one of the largest and most economically and ecologically important families, remains poor due to generally limited molecular data and incomplete taxon sampling of previous studies. Here, we resolve many of the Leguminosae's thorniest nodes through comprehensive analysis of plastome-scale data using multiple modified coding and noncoding data sets of 187 species representing almost all major clades of the family. Additionally, we thoroughly characterize conflicting phylogenomic signal across the plastome in light of the family's complex history of plastome evolution. Most analyses produced largely congruent topologies with strong statistical support and provided strong support for resolution of some long-controversial deep relationships among the early diverging lineages of the subfamilies Caesalpinioideae and Papilionoideae. The robust phylogenetic backbone reconstructed in this study establishes a framework for future studies on legume classification, evolution, and diversification. However, conflicting phylogenetic signal was detected and quantified at several key nodes that prevent the confident resolution of these nodes using plastome data alone. [Leguminosae; maximum likelihood; phylogenetic conflict; plastome; recalcitrant relationships; stochasticity; systematic error.].
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it