Formal Links between Feature Diversity and Phylogenetic Diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A bstract The extent to which phylogenetic diversity (PD) captures feature diversity (FD) is a topical and controversial question in biodiversity conservation. In this short paper, we formalise this question and establish a precise mathematical condition for FD (based on discrete characters) to coincide with PD. In this way, we make explicit the two main reasons why the two diversity measures might disagree for given data; namely, the presence of certain patterns of feature evolution and loss, and using temporal branch lengths for PD in settings that may not be appropriate (e.g. due to rapid evolution of certain features over short periods of time). Our paper also explores the relationship between the ‘Fair Proportion’ index of PD and a simple index of FD (both of which correspond to Shapley values in cooperative game theory). In a second mathematical result, we show that the two indices can take identical values for any phylogenetic tree, provided the branch lengths in the tree are chosen appropriately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".