MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398144543 · doi:10.1093/sysbio/syae026

Inferring the Evolutionary Model of Community-Structuring Traits with Convolutional Kitchen Sinks

2024· article· en· W4398144543 on OpenAlexaff
Avery Kruger, Vaishaal Shankar, T. Jonathan Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueSystematic Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringBiologyEvolutionary biologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When communities are assembled through processes such as filtering or limiting similarity acting on phylogenetically conserved traits, the evolutionary signature of those traits may be reflected in patterns of community membership. We show how the model of trait evolution underlying community-structuring traits can be inferred from community membership data using both a variation of a traditional eco-phylogenetic metric-the mean pairwise phylogenetic distance (MPD) between taxa-and a recent machine learning tool, Convolutional Kitchen Sinks (CKS). Both methods perform well across a range of phylogenetically informative evolutionary models, but CKS outperforms MPD as tree size increases. We demonstrate CKS by inferring the evolutionary history of freeze tolerance in angiosperms. Our analysis is consistent with a late burst model, suggesting freeze tolerance evolved recently. We suggest that multiple data types that are ordered on phylogenies, such as trait values, species interactions, or community presence/absence, are good candidates for CKS modeling because the generative models produce structured differences between neighboring points that CKS is well-suited for. We introduce the R package kitchen to perform CKS for generic application of the technique.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSystematic BiologySame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207