Additional file 1 of Early cephalopod evolution clarified through Bayesian phylogenetic inference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Additional file 1: Text S1. Character definitions, including hierarchical relationships and detailed discussions and justifications of each character. Text S2. Character sets, list of all characters that were excluded for each analysis. Text S3. Taxon sets, list of all taxa that were excluded for each analysis. Text S4. Supplementary references cited in Text S1. Fig. S1. Measurements. Fig. S2. Illustrations of characters. Fig. S3. Distribution of conch parameters (1/3). Fig. S4. Distribution of conch parameters (2/3). Fig. S5. Distribution of conch parameters (3/3). Fig. S6. Full MCC tree of the CtCo analysis. Fig. S7. Full MCC tree of the CoCo analysis. Fig. S8. Full MCC tree of the IcCo analysis. Fig. S9. Full MCC tree of the AmCo analysis. Fig. S10. Full MCC tree of the IaCo analysis. Fig. S11. Full MCC tree of the CrCo analysis. Fig. S12. Full MCC tree of the MaCo analysis. Fig. S13. Full MCC tree of the CMCo analysis. Fig. S14. Full MCC tree of the CtDp analysis. Fig. S15. Full MCC tree of the CtIc analysis. Fig. S16. Full MCC tree of the CtEl analysis. Fig. S17. Full MCC tree of the CtRd analysis. Fig. S18. Pruned MCC trees (1/6). Fig. S19. Pruned MCC trees (2/6). Fig. S20. Pruned MCC trees (3/6). Fig. S21. Pruned MCC trees (4/6). Fig. S22. Pruned MCC trees (5/6). Fig. S23. Pruned MCC trees (6/6). Fig. S24. MCC tree of an analysis containing the same taxa as the CtCo pruned MCC tree. Table S1. Details of measurements and their abbreviations. Table S2. Details of conch parameters and their abbreviations. Table S3. Equivalent nodes in full and pruned MCC trees. Table S4. Tree similarities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.848 | 0.220 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".