Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic variation in fitness is the fundamental prerequisite for adaptive evolutionary change. If there is no variation in survival and reproduction or if this variation has no genetic basis, then the composition of a population will not evolve over time. Consequently, the factors influencing genetic variation in fitness have received close attention from evolutionary biologists. One key factor is the mode of reproduction. Indeed, it has long been thought that sex enhances fitness variation and that this explains the ubiquity of sexual reproduction among eukaryotes. Nevertheless, theoretical studies have demonstrated that sex need not always increase genetic variation in fitness. In particular, if fitness interactions among beneficial alleles (epistasis) are positive, sex can reduce genetic variance in fitness. Empirical data have been sorely needed to settle the issue of whether sex does enhance fitness variation. A recent flurry of studies[1-4] has demonstrated that sex and recombination do dramatically increase genetic variation in fitness and consequently the rate of adaptive evolution. Interpreted in light of evolutionary theory, these studies rule out positive in these experiments epistasis as a major source of genetic associations. Further studies are needed, however, to tease apart other possible sources.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".