Data from: Using text-mined trait data to test for cooperate-and-radiate co-evolution between ants and plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mutualisms may be “key innovations” that spur lineage diversification by augmenting niche breadth, geographic range, or population size, thereby increasing speciation rates or decreasing extinction rates. Whether mutualism accelerates diversification in both interacting lineages is an open question. Research suggests that plants that attract ant mutualists have higher diversification rates than non-ant associated lineages. We ask whether the reciprocal is true: does the interaction between ants and plants also accelerate diversification in ants, i.e. do ants and plants cooperate-and-radiate? We used a novel text-mining approach to determine which ant species associate with plants in defensive or seed dispersal mutualisms. We investigated patterns of lineage diversification across a recent ant phylogeny using BiSSE, BAMM, and HiSSE models. Ants that associate mutualistically with plants had elevated diversification rates compared to non-mutualistic ants in the BiSSE model, with a similar trend in BAMM, suggesting ants and plants cooperate-and-radiate. However, the best-fitting model was a HiSSE model with a hidden state, meaning that diversification models that do no account for unmeasured traits are inappropriate to assess the relationship between mutualism and ant diversification. Against a backdrop of diversification rate heterogeneity, the best-fitting HiSSE model found that mutualism actually decreases diversification: mutualism evolved much more frequently in rapidly diversifying ant lineages, but then subsequently slowed diversification. Thus, it appears that ant lineages first radiated, then cooperated with plants.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".