MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FIXATION PROBABILITIES DEPEND ON LIFE HISTORY: FECUNDITY, GENERATION TIME AND SURVIVAL IN A BURST‐DEATH MODEL

2008· article· en· W1968648388 on OpenAlexafffund
Helen K. Alexander, Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyFixation (population genetics)FecundityChemostatMutation ratePopulationGenetic FitnessExtinction (optical mineralogy)GeneticsDemographyBiological evolutionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burst-death model has been developed to describe the life history of organisms with variable generation times and a burst of a fixed number of offspring. The model also includes an optional constant clearance rate, such as washout from a chemostat, and the possibility of sustained periods of population growth followed by severe bottlenecks, as in serial passaging. In this model, a beneficial mutation can either increase the burst rate or the burst size, or reduce the clearance rate, thus increasing survival. In this article we examine the effects of these three possible mechanisms on both the Malthusian fitness and the fixation probability of the lineage. We find that equivalent relative increases in the burst rate or burst size confer equivalent increases in the Malthusian fitness of a lineage, whereas increasing survival typically has a more moderate effect on Malthusian fitness. In contrast, for beneficial mutations that confer the same increase in fitness, mutations that increase survival are the most likely to fix, followed by mutations that increase the burst rate. Mutations that increase the burst size are the least likely to fix. These results imply that mutant lineages with the highest Malthusian fitness are not, in many cases, the most likely to escape extinction.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.523

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207