Phylogenies in yeast species descriptions: In defense of neighbor‐joining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The neighbor-joining (NJ) method of tree inference is examined, with special attention to its use in yeast species descriptions. How the often-vilified method works is often misunderstood. More importantly, given the right kind of data, its output is a phylogram that illustrates a hypothetical phylogeny that is just as credible as that obtained by any other method. And as with any other method, the result is greatly affected by sampling intensity, particularly the number of aligned positions used for analysis. I address various allegations, including the claim that the method is phenetic, and, therefore, not phylogenetic. I argue that NJ is the most suitable tree inference method to use in yeast species descriptions, primarily because it is best at visually preserving the extent of sequence divergence between close relatives, which continues to be the primary criterion for yeast species delineation. The relevance of bootstraps in the application of the phylogenetic species concept is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".