Formal Links between Feature Diversity and Phylogenetic Diversity
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
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 formalize 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 article 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. [Evolutionary distinctiveness; feature diversity; phylogenetic diversity; shapley value.].
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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