MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Replicated Evolution in Plants

2023· review· en· W4313612013 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

VenueAnnual Review of Plant Biology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyBiomeEvolutionary biologyGenetic algorithmEcologyEcotypeReplication (statistics)MacroevolutionEvolutionary ecologyBiological evolutionParallel evolutionPhylogeneticsEcosystemGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar traits and functions commonly evolve in nature. Here, we explore patterns of replicated evolution across the plant kingdom and discuss the processes responsible for such patterns. We begin this review by defining replicated evolution and the theoretical, genetic, and ecological concepts that help explain it. We then focus our attention on empirical cases of replicated evolution at the phenotypic and genotypic levels. We find that replication at the ecotype level is common, but evidence for repeated ecological speciation is surprisingly sparse. On the other hand, the replicated evolution of ecological strategies and physiological mechanisms across similar biomes appears to be pervasive. We conclude by highlighting where future efforts can help us bridge the understanding of replicated evolution across different levels of biological organization. Earth's landscape is diverse but also repeats itself. Organisms seem to have followed suit.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.210 · 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