Fitness, parasitoids, and biological control: an opinion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fitness, defined as theper capitarate of increase of a genotype with reference to the population carrying the associated genes, is a concept used by biologists to describe how well an individual performs in a population. Fitness is rarely measured directly and biologists resort to proxies more easily measured but with varying connection to fitness. Size, progeny survival, and developmental rate are the most common proxies used in the literature to describe parasitoid fitness. The importance of the proxies varies between papers looking at evolutionary theories and those assessing ecological applications. The most direct measures of fitness for parasitoids are realised fecundity for females and mating ability for males, although these proxies are more difficult to measure under natural conditions. For practical purposes, measure of size, through body size or mass, is the proxy easiest to use while providing good comparative values; however, care must be taken when using a single proxy, as proxies can be affected differently by rearing conditions of the parasitoid.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".