Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION AND FITNESS I trust that, after studying the material presented up to this point, the reader has a fair idea about the various factors underlying such motivated behavioural activities as mating, parental care, feeding, food selection, drinking, stimulus seeking and defensive or agonistic reactions. The material in the preceding chapters indicate that although the response patterns may differ, these motivated acts have one important feature in common. They are terminated when an end-point corresponding to a goal is achieved. The concept of fitness was discussed in the early part of this book with the presumption that organisms have evolved in such a way to maximise fitness. I discussed how evolutionary processes may have selected mechanisms that result in a particular behaviour. From this perspective, the functional significance of any aspect of behaviour is seen in terms of fitness maximisation or the chances it gives to the perpetuation of the organism's genes. The functional significance of mating behaviour is obvious, even though it may not directly enhance the survival of the individual. Although a motivated act such as feeding contributes directly to the survival chances of the individual, it does so through its contribution to the chances of gene perpetuation. The traditional distinction made between activities such as feeding, drinking or attacking and activities concerned with gene perpetuation such as sexual behaviour is unwarranted. All behaviour has been affected by evolutionary processes with consequences on fitness. In discussing sexual selection, I presented material indicating that sexual dimorphism and sexual behaviour may decrease an individual's survival even though such attributes increase the chance of gene perpetuation.
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 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.188 | 0.100 |
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".