MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968767905 · doi:10.1086/340601

The Division of Labor: Genotypic versus Phenotypic Specialization

2002· article· en· W1968767905 on OpenAlexafffund
Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Naturalist · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyPhenotypeEvolutionary biologyDivision of labourExtinction (optical mineralogy)GenotypeGenetic heterogeneityGeneticsGeneEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A model of the division of labor in simple evolving systems is explored to compare two strategies evident in natural populations: phenotypic specialization (such as differentiation by regulated gene expression) and genotypic specialization (such as co-infection by complementary covirus populations). While genotypic specialization is vulnerable to the chance extinction of an essential specialist type and to parasitism, phenotypic specialization is able to overcome these hurdles. When simple spatial effects are included, phenotypic specialization has further benefits, protecting against destructive dynamic patterns. Many of the advantages of phenotypic specialization, however, can only be realized when a high degree of relatedness within groups is ensured.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American NaturalistSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207