MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086759089 · doi:10.14288/1.0394249

Detecting the phylogenetic signal of glacial refugia in a bryodiversity hotspot outside the tropics

2020· article· en· W3086759089 on OpenAlexaff
Ernest Wu

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBryophyte Studies and Records
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlacial periodTropicsHotspot (geology)GeographyPhylogenetic treeEcologyBiologyEvolutionary biologyPaleontologyGeologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Glacial refugia have likely been important in shaping diversity gradients outside the tropics. However, the biogeographical histories of most species within glacial refugia remain unclear. In this thesis, I examine the geographic range structure and phylogenetic attributes of the mosses of Haida Gwaii, a putative glacial refugium and ‘hotspot’ of moss diversity off the northwest coast of British Columbia. I show that many species have widespread, but disjunct distributions, typically with few close relatives on the islands. I suggest that these features reflect the imprint of glacial history, whereby species within refugia represent isolated populations of previously more widespread species that may have diversified elsewhere. The phylogenetic dispersion of species within high elevation habitats, which best match the climatic regime of the historical glacial refugium, is consistent with the filtering of evolutionarily distinct glacial relicts, and contrasts markedly with the patterns of phylogenetic clustering observed across other habitat types. My study illustrates how the present-day phylogenetic structure of species composition and diversity can reveal the signal of glacial refugia, and help explain why some taxa are more diverse outside of the tropics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score0.953

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.156
Teacher spread0.142 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicBryophyte Studies and RecordsFrench-language works237,207