MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INCLUSIVE FITNESS ANALYSIS ON MATHEMATICAL GROUPS

2010· article· en· W1492153018 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Taylor, Timothy Lillicrap, Daniel Cownden

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTraitInclusive fitnessTransitive relationWrightPopulationGroup selectionSet (abstract data type)Selection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary biologyMathematicsCombinatoricsComputer scienceDemographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent work on the evolution of behaviour is set in a structured population, providing a systematic way to describe gene flow and behavioural interactions. To obtain analytical results one needs a structure with considerable regularity. Our results apply to such "homogeneous" structures (e.g., lattices, cycles, and island models). This regularity has been formally described by a "node-transitivity" condition but in mathematics, such internal symmetry is powerfully described by the theory of mathematical groups. Here, this theory provides elegant direct arguments for a more general version of a number of existing results. Our main result is that in large "group-structured" populations, primary fitness effects on others play no role in the evolution of the behaviour. The competitive effects of such a trait cancel the primary effects, and the inclusive fitness effect is given by the direct effect of the actor on its own fitness. This result is conditional on a number of assumptions such as (1) whether generations overlap, (2) whether offspring dispersal is symmetric, (3) whether the trait affects fecundity or survival, and (4) whether the underlying group is abelian. We formulate a number of results of this type in finite and infinite populations for both Moran and Wright-Fisher demographies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.400

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.248 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207