MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3046121073 · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syaa059

Investigating Morphological Complexes Using Informational Dissonance and Bayes Factors: A Case Study in Corbiculate Bees

2020· article· en· W3046121073 on OpenAlexafffund
Diego S. Porto, Eduardo A. B. Almeida, Matthew W. Pennell

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyPhylogenetic treeEusocialityBayes' theoremEvolutionary biologyCognitive dissonanceBayes factorVariation (astronomy)Bayesian probabilityTraitPhylogeneticsPhylogenetic comparative methodsArtificial intelligenceEcologyComputer scienceHymenopteraGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is widely recognized that different regions of a genome often have different evolutionary histories and that ignoring this variation when estimating phylogenies can be misleading. However, the extent to which this is also true for morphological data is still largely unknown. Discordance among morphological traits might plausibly arise due to either variable convergent selection pressures or else phenomena such as hemiplasy. Here, we investigate patterns of discordance among 282 morphological characters, which we scored for 50 bee species particularly targeting corbiculate bees, a group that includes the well-known eusocial honeybees and bumblebees. As a starting point for selecting the most meaningful partitions in the data, we grouped characters as morphological modules, highly integrated trait complexes that as a result of developmental constraints or coordinated selection we expect to share an evolutionary history and trajectory. In order to assess conflict and coherence across and within these morphological modules, we used recently developed approaches for computing Bayesian phylogenetic information allied with model comparisons using Bayes factors. We found that despite considerable conflict among morphological complexes, accounting for among-character and among-partition rate variation with individual gamma distributions, rate multipliers, and linked branch lengths can lead to coherent phylogenetic inference using morphological data. We suggest that evaluating information content and dissonance among partitions is a useful step in estimating phylogenies from morphological data, just as it is with molecular data. Furthermore, we argue that adopting emerging approaches for investigating dissonance in genomic datasets may provide new insights into the integration and evolution of anatomical complexes. [Apidae; entropy; morphological modules; phenotypic integration; phylogenetic information.].

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.094 · 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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BiologySame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207