Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33745308›Full record

ArticlePhilosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences2021

Testing methods of linguistic homeland detection using synthetic data.

Søren Wichmann, Taraka Rama

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Reconstructing prehistoric languages.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2021
    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

2 authors.

Søren WichmannLeiden University Centre for Linguistics, Leiden University, Postbus 9515, Leiden 2300 RA, The Netherlands.
Taraka RamaDepartment of Linguistics, University of North Texas, Discovery Park Room B201, 3940 N Elm St., Suite B201, Denton, TX 76207, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two families of quantitative methods have been used to infer geographical homelands of language families: Bayesian phylogeography and the 'diversity method'. Bayesian methods model how populations may have moved using a phylogenetic tree as a backbone, while the diversity method assumes that the geographical area where linguistic diversity is highest likely corresponds to the homeland. No systematic tests of the performances of the different methods in a linguistic context have so far been published. Here, we carry out performance testing by simulating language families, including branching structures and word lists, along with speaker populations moving in space. We test six different methods: two versions of BayesTraits; the relaxed random walk model of BEAST 2; our own RevBayes implementations of a fixed rate and a variable rates random walk model; and the diversity method. As a result of the tests, we propose a hierarchy of performance of the different methods. Factors such as geographical idiosyncrasies, incomplete sampling, tree imbalance and small family sizes all have a negative impact on performance, but mostly across the board, the performance hierarchy generally being impervious to such factors. This article is part of the theme issue 'Reconstructing prehistoric languages'.

Indexed as

Cultural EvolutionHuman MigrationLanguageBayes TheoremHumansLinguisticsPhylogenyPhylogeographyBayesian phylogeographyhistorical linguisticshomelandsmigrationphylogenetics

Identifiers

PMID33745308
PMCPMC8059642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.