MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378745298 · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syad032

The Major Features of Macroevolution

2023· article· en· W4378745298 on OpenAlexaff
L. Francisco Henao‐Díaz, Matt Pennell

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEvolution and Paleontology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMacroevolutionCladePhylogenetic treeBiologyDiversification (marketing strategy)Evolutionary biologyTree of life (biology)Tree (set theory)Set (abstract data type)PhylogeneticsVariation (astronomy)Computer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evolutionary dynamics operating across deep time leave footprints in the shapes of phylogenetic trees. For the last several decades, researchers have used increasingly large and robust phylogenies to study the evolutionary history of individual clades and to investigate the causes of the glaring disparities in diversity among groups. Whereas typically not the focal point of individual clade-level studies, many researchers have remarked on recurrent patterns that have been observed across many different groups and at many different time scales. Whereas previous studies have documented various such regularities in topology and branch length distributions, they have typically focused on a single pattern and used a disparate collection (oftentimes, of quite variable reliability) of trees to assess it. Here we take advantage of modern megaphylogenies and unify previous disparate observations about the shapes embedded in the Tree of Life to create a catalog of the "major features of macroevolution." By characterizing such a large swath of subtrees in a consistent way, we hope to provide a set of phenomena that process-based macroevolutionary models of diversification ought to seek to explain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BiologySame topicEvolution and Paleontology StudiesFrench-language works237,207