Tracing Our Lineage: Molecular Contributions to the Construction of the Human Phylogeny
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most novel and important contributions to biological anthropology in the last two decades has been the implementation of the techniques of molecular genetics to address some of the field’s fundamental debates. The ordering of the extant hominids into monophyletic clades has long been a source of contention, with human-chimpanzee, human-gorilla, and human-orangutan clades being proposed in various studies. An expanding genetic analysis culminating in over 20,000 sequence alignments of all extant hominids has shown that chimpanzees and humans form a monophyletic clade, the closest relative of which is the gorilla. Since the discovery of the first Neandertal specimens there has also been a sometimes vicious dichotomy between those that advocate interbreeding between modern humans and Neandertals (The Multiregional Continuity Model), and those who maintain that modern humans replaced all other hominids with absolutely no interbreeding (The Recent African Origin Model). Analysis of mitochondrial DNA accompanied by a draft sequence of the Neandertal nuclear genome has called into question the validity of both paradigms and promoted the emergence of a compromise in the form of The Partial Replacement Model. Finally, the debate on the division of the human species into geographic races has been raging for centuries. Genetic comparisons between populations demonstrate that the total amount of human variation is in fact very small and provides no basis for the concept of biologically distinct races. The contributions of molecular genetics to biological anthropology are inestimable and will only continue to increase as technological advances are made.
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".