Evolutionary relationships in Anax dragonflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anax dragonflies are found worldwide, with many species migrating across continents. One species of Anax, A. junius, makes annual migrations travelling thousands of miles each fall from Canada to Mexico (May 2013). Researchers from all over the world use Anax to learn about vision, insect musculature and insect migration. For example, A. junius is a favorite of many research projects in North America (Bybee et al. 2012), while A. imperator is often used by European collaborators (Sharkey et al. 2015), and A. parthenope by Asian collaborators (Futahashi et al. 2015). However, despite widespread interest in Anax, relationships among species remain murky. Specifically, the relationship between Anax and Hemianax is unclear. They were previously considered the sister to each other, but recently some have suggested collapsing the two groups to reduce paraphyly (Peters 2000; Schorr et al. 2007). It is still unclear if they should be combined or left as sister to each other, and some continue to distinguish the two groups as separate (Von Ellenrieder 2002). Because Anax is a highly mobile group, very few geographic structures limit populations. Therefore, it is interesting to investigate what genetic barriers or migratory events divided populations enough to limit gene flow and promote speciation. This can be then applied to other groups to better understand how geographic distribution relates to evolutionary relationships. In this study, we compared four genes from 22 species to answer these questions as well as clarify general evolutionary relationships between species in Anax.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".