“Evolutionist and Missionary,” the Reverend John Thomas Gulick (1832–1923). Part II: coincident or ontogenetic selection—the Baldwin effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last third of the 19th and first third of the 20th centuries, John Thomas Gulick (1832-1923) was one of the most well-known and influential evolutionists. His research on the nonadaptive geographical variation in snails of the genus Achatinella in the valleys of Oahu in the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) demonstrated the importance of geographical isolation in speciation, anticipating Ernst Mayr's proposal of the founder principle and Sewell Wright's mechanisms of genetic drift and genetic isolation. Gulick mechanisms for species transformation were twofold. Both are known today under different names: geographical isolation--which Gulick called cumulative segregation--and organic selection (the Baldwin effect), which Gulick called coincident or ontogenetic selection, the topic of this paper to accompany a paper on Gulick's concept of cumulative segregation. With coincident selection, Gulick saw organisms as active participants in, and in interaction with, their environment, able to respond to environmental change without the action of, or with minimal and secondary input from, natural selection. Gulick stands in the same relationship to the Baldwin effect (coincident selection) as he does to the geographical isolation (cumulative segregation) and the founder principle (indiscriminate isolation): elucidator, original thinker, anticipator and founding father--truly an evolutionist extraordinaire, whom we should recognize as one of the earliest, most original and most innovative of evolutionary biologists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".