Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27009895›Full record

ArticleSystematic biology2016

Two Influential Primate Classifications Logically Aligned.

Nico M Franz, Naomi M Pier, Deeann M Reeder, Mingmin Chen, Shizhuo Yu, Parisa Kianmajd, Shawn Bowers, Bertram Ludäscher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Unified and pluralistic ideals for data sharing and reuse in biodiversity.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2023
    Article
  3. Wanted: Standards for FAIR taxonomic concept representations and relationships.Biodiversity Information Science and Standards · 2021
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. To increase trust, change the social design behind aggregated biodiversity data.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2018
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Nico M FranzSchool of Life Sciences, PO Box 874501, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA; nico.franz@asu.edu.
Naomi M PierSchool of Life Sciences, PO Box 874501, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA;
Deeann M ReederDepartment of Biology, Bucknell University, 1 Dent Drive, Lewisburg, PA 17837, USA;
Mingmin ChenDepartment of Computer Science, 2063 Kemper Hall, 1 Shields Avenue, University of California at Davis, CA 95616, USA;
Shizhuo YuDepartment of Computer Science, 2063 Kemper Hall, 1 Shields Avenue, University of California at Davis, CA 95616, USA;
Parisa KianmajdDepartment of Computer Science, 2063 Kemper Hall, 1 Shields Avenue, University of California at Davis, CA 95616, USA;
Shawn BowersDepartment of Computer Science, 502 East Boone Avenue, AD Box 26, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA 99258, USA;
Bertram LudäscherGradate School of Library and Information Science, 510 East Daniel Street, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL 61820.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classifications and phylogenies of perceived natural entities change in the light of new evidence. Taxonomic changes, translated into Code-compliant names, frequently lead to name:meaning dissociations across succeeding treatments. Classification standards such as the Mammal Species of the World (MSW) may experience significant levels of taxonomic change from one edition to the next, with potential costs to long-term, large-scale information integration. This circumstance challenges the biodiversity and phylogenetic data communities to express taxonomic congruence and incongruence in ways that both humans and machines can process, that is, to logically represent taxonomic alignments across multiple classifications. We demonstrate that such alignments are feasible for two classifications of primates corresponding to the second and third MSW editions. Our approach has three main components: (i) use of taxonomic concept labels, that is name sec. author (where sec. means according to), to assemble each concept hierarchy separately via parent/child relationships; (ii) articulation of select concepts across the two hierarchies with user-provided Region Connection Calculus (RCC-5) relationships; and (iii) the use of an Answer Set Programming toolkit to infer and visualize logically consistent alignments of these input constraints. Our use case entails the Primates sec. Groves (1993; MSW2-317 taxonomic concepts; 233 at the species level) and Primates sec. Groves (2005; MSW3-483 taxonomic concepts; 376 at the species level). Using 402 RCC-5 input articulations, the reasoning process yields a single, consistent alignment and 153,111 Maximally Informative Relations that constitute a comprehensive meaning resolution map for every concept pair in the Primates sec. MSW2/MSW3. The complete alignment, and various partitions thereof, facilitate quantitative analyses of name:meaning dissociation, revealing that nearly one in three taxonomic names are not reliable across treatments-in the sense of the same name identifying congruent taxonomic meanings. The RCC-5 alignment approach is potentially widely applicable in systematics and can achieve scalable, precise resolution of semantically evolving name usages in synthetic, next-generation biodiversity, and phylogeny data platforms.

Indexed as

PhylogenyAnimalsBiodiversityClassificationPrimatesAlignmentclassificationconcept taxonomylogicontologyPrimatesreasoningRegion Connection Calculus

Identifiers

PMID27009895
PMCPMC4911943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.