MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4236886320 · doi:10.1177/117693430600200034

Topological Bias in Distance-Based Phylogenetic Methods: Problems with Over- and Underestimated Genetic Distances

2006· article· en· W4236886320 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolutionary Bioinformatics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTree (set theory)Phylogenetic treeTopology (electrical circuits)MathematicsGenetic distanceAlgorithmComputer scienceStatisticsEvolutionary biologyCombinatoricsBiologyGeneticsGeneGenetic variation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I show several types of topological biases in distance-based methods that use the least-squares method to evaluate branch lengths and the minimum evolution (ME) or the Fitch-Margoliash (FM) criterion to choose the best tree. For a 6-species tree, there are two tree shapes, one with three cherries (a cherry is a pair of adjacent leaves descending from the most recent common ancestor), and the other with two. When genetic distances are underestimated, the 3-cherry tree shape is favored with either the ME or FM criterion. When the genetic distances are overestimated, the ME criterion favors the 2-cherry tree, but the direction of bias with the FM criterion depends on whether negative branches are allowed, i.e. allowing negative branches favors the 3-cherry tree shape but disallowing negative branches favors the 2-cherry tree shape. The extent of the bias is explored by computer simulation of sequence evolution.

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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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