MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301391176 · doi:10.1111/ele.14098

Evolutionary opportunity and the limits of community similarity in replicate radiations of island lizards

2022· letter· en· W4301391176 on OpenAlexafffund
Luke O. Frishkoff, Gavia Lertzman‐Lepofsky, D. Luke Mahler

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology Letters · 2022
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSpecies richnessEcologyGeneralist and specialist speciesAnolisDiversification (marketing strategy)Adaptive radiationMacroevolutionBiologyGeographyLizardHabitatPhylogenetic tree

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological community structure ultimately depends on the production of community members by speciation. To understand how macroevolution shapes communities, we surveyed Anolis lizard assemblages across elevations on Jamaica and Hispaniola, neighbouring Caribbean islands similar in environment, but contrasting in the richness of their endemic evolutionary radiations. The impact of diversification on local communities depends on available spatial opportunities for speciation within or between ecologically distinct sub-regions. In the spatially expansive lowlands of both islands, communities converge in species richness and average morphology. But communities diverge in the highlands. On Jamaica, where limited highland area restricted diversification, communities remain depauperate and consist largely of elevational generalists. In contrast, a unique fauna of high-elevation specialists evolved in the vast Hispaniolan highlands, augmenting highland richness and driving islandwide turnover in community composition. Accounting for disparate evolutionary opportunities may illuminate when regional diversity will enhance local diversity and help predict when communities should converge in structure.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.160 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology LettersSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207