MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323664526 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2023.106362

Opposing effects of plant traits on diversification

2023· review· en· W4323664526 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Anderson, John R. Pannell, Sylvain Billiard, Concetta Burgarella, Hugo de Boer, Mathilde Dufaÿ, Andrew J. Helmstetter, Marcos Méndez, Sarah P. Otto, Denis Roze, Hervé Sauquet, Daniel J. Schoen, Jürg Schönenberger, Mario Vallejo‐Marín, Rosana Zenil‐Ferguson, Jos Käfer, Sylvain Glémin

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsHorizon 2020Horizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsBiologyDiversification (marketing strategy)Evolutionary biologyTraitOutcrossingExtinction (optical mineralogy)Context (archaeology)Lineage (genetic)EcologyGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Species diversity can vary dramatically across lineages due to differences in speciation and extinction rates. Here, we explore the effects of several plant traits on diversification, finding that most traits have opposing effects on diversification. For example, outcrossing may increase the efficacy of selection and adaptation but also decrease mate availability, two processes with contrasting effects on lineage persistence. Such opposing trait effects can manifest as differences in diversification rates that depend on ecological context, spatiotemporal scale, and associations with other traits. The complexity of pathways linking traits to diversification suggests that the mechanistic underpinnings behind their correlations may be difficult to interpret with any certainty, and context dependence means that the effects of specific traits on diversification are likely to differ across multiple lineages and timescales. This calls for taxonomically and context-controlled approaches to studies that correlate traits and diversification.

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 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 score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.158

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 head0.193
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.093 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207