MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975864892 · doi:10.1534/genetics.107.072009

Fixation Probabilities When Generation Times Are Variable: The Burst–Death Model

2007· article· en· W1975864892 on OpenAlexafffund
J.E. Hubbarde, Geoff Wild, Lindi M. Wahl

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2007
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)GeneticsVariable (mathematics)MathematicsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating the fixation probability of a beneficial mutation has a rich history in theoretical population genetics. Typically, to attain mathematical tractability, we assume that generation times are fixed, while the number of offspring per individual is stochastic. However, fixation probabilities are extremely sensitive to these assumptions regarding life history. In this article, we compute the fixation probability for a "burst-death" life-history model. The model assumes that generation times are exponentially distributed, but the number of offspring per individual is constant. We estimate the fixation probability for populations of constant size and for populations that grow exponentially between periodic population bottlenecks. We find that the fixation probability is, in general, substantially lower in the burst-death model than in classical models. We also note striking qualitative differences between the fates of beneficial mutations that increase burst size and mutations that increase the burst rate. In particular, once the burst size is sufficiently large relative to the wild type, the burst-death model predicts that fixation probability depends only on burst rate.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.520
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations24
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207