Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary fitness of traits or behaviors is inclusive [ 1 Hamilton W.D. Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. J. Theor. Biol. 1964; 7: 1-16 Crossref PubMed Scopus (9354) Google Scholar ] of their ‘direct’ effects on the trait bearers’ reproduction and their ‘indirect’ effects on others’ reproduction (Figure 1). Inclusive fitness models lay bare that traits can be selectively advantageous even when they negatively impact direct fitness. A capstone of this approach is that Darwin's dilemma of sterile workers and nonreproductive helpers seems neatly solved by the simplicity of Hamilton's Rule (rb – c > 0). Workers work and helpers help to maximize their inclusive fitness. Recently, however, the inclusive fitness approach has been severely criticized for both its mathematics and the lack of critical tests of this fundamental prediction [ 2 Wilson E.O. Kin selection as the key to altruism: its rise and fall. Soc. Res. 2005; 72: 159-166 Google Scholar , 3 Nowak M.A. et al. The evolution of eusociality. Nature. 2010; 466: 1057-1062 Crossref PubMed Scopus (726) Google Scholar ]. This marshaled a robust defense from hundreds (including an author of this response) [ 4 Abbot P. et al. Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality. Nature. 2011; 471: E1-E4 Crossref PubMed Scopus (264) Google Scholar , 5 Nonacs P. Ground truth is the test that counts. Nature. 2010; 467: 661 Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar ] and a rebuttal review listing 12 studies that test whether indirect fitness gains can explain reproductive altruism [ 6 Bourke A.F.G. Hamilton's rule and the causes of social evolution. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B: Biol. Sci. 2014; 369: 20130362 Crossref PubMed Scopus (97) Google Scholar ]. Several of the reviewed studies had methodological limitations, however, and five suggested that gains in indirect fitness alone could not explain cooperation. Given thousands of published papers on inclusive fitness since Hamilton's seminal work [ 4 Abbot P. et al. Inclusive fitness theory and eusociality. Nature. 2011; 471: E1-E4 Crossref PubMed Scopus (264) Google Scholar ], such a paucity of explicit tests may indeed buttress E.O. Wilson's pronouncement that empirical advances have been ‘meagre’.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".