MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3140141719

JML: testing hybridization from species trees

2011· article· en· W3140141719 on OpenAlexaff
imon Joly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Taxonomy and Phylogenetics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalescent theorySoftwareComputer scienceTree (set theory)Pairwise comparisonPopulationBiologyMathematicsPhylogenetic treeArtificial intelligenceCombinatoricsProgramming languageGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ecies 1 s 2 ( e applied on 3 a 4 f 5 p 6 p te 7 s 8 m 9 s 10 q ecies tree 11 m 12 c 13 s 14 I introduce the software JML that tests for the presence of hybridization in multi-sp equence datasets by posterior predictive checking following Joly, McLenachan and Lockhart 2009, American Naturalist 174:e54-e70). Although their method could potentially b ny dataset, the lack of appropriate software made its application difficult. The software JML thus ills a need for an easy application of the method, but also includes improvements such as the ossibility to incorporate uncertainty in the species tree topology. The JML software uses a osterior distribution of species trees, population sizes and branch lengths to simulate replica equence datasets using the coalescent with no migration. A test quantity, defined as the inimum pairwise sequence distance between sequences of two species, is then evaluated on the imulated datasets and compared to the one estimated from the original data. Because the test uantity is a good predictor of hybridization events, departure from the bifurcating sp odel could be interpreted as evidence of hybridization. Software performance in terms of omputing time is evaluated for several parameters. I also show an application example of the oftware for detecting hybridization among native diploid North American roses.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.125
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.056 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPlant Taxonomy and PhylogeneticsFrench-language works237,207