ArticlePeerJ2021
A modularity analysis helps improving the structure of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a recent work I transformed a complex and integrated text like the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature into a network of interconnected parts of text. This new approach allowed understanding that a continuous body of text cannot accurately reflect the true structure of the Code, and provided a scientific methodology to identify
methodsUsing the first version of the network of the Code, I perform a comprehensive modularity analysis in two rounds: the first round aims to identify the fewest and largest communities or modules for the entire network, whereas the second round identifies the sub-modules within each larger module. The potential conflicts between the current structure of the Code and the module composition are evaluated with a parcellation analysis.
resultsThe optimal modularity search identified 10 different modules in the entire network of varying size (ranging from 75 to 200 nodes). Each module can be further divided into smaller modules, that all-together allow describing the 65 conceptual groups of text items in the Code. Parcellation analysis revealed that two-thirds of the current chapters of the Code are in excellent or good accordance with the recovered conceptual modules, whereas the current composition of six chapters is in serious conflict with the conceptual structure of the Code. DISCUSSION: Judging only the composition and not the order of appearance of the Articles in the Chapters of the Code, I show that in many cases the current structure of the Code is found to correspond quite well to the concepts presented therein. The most important conflict is found on the provisions related to the various groups of names governed by the Code: family-, genus-, and species-group names. Currently, these provisions are spread out in different Articles in different Chapters, along the entire length of the Code. The modularity analysis suggests that re-organizing the Code in chapters that will deal with all aspects related to a given group (e.g., chapters including information on name formation, availability, typification, and validity for a given group), could potentially improve reader experience and, consequently, the applicability of the Code.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.