Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should asexual/vegetative offspring be counted in estimates of evolutionary fitness in seed plants? The answer it seems remains debatable among evolutionary ecologists. Arguably, however, the answer is yes when fitness is ascribed strictly to resident genes/alleles, in terms of their survival—through copying and transmission success—over time. This success results only because sporophyte ‘rooted units’ make more ‘rooted units’—not primarily in terms of leaving descendent ‘individuals’, but more fundamentally as carriers of gene/allele copies in perpetuity. The ‘rooted-unit’ (RU) is identified by root and shoot tissue integrated through an essential, and distinctly local, vascular transition. It thus represents a functional and practical circumscription for enumerating individual ‘offspring’ that applies equally to those derived from zygotes, or from clonality. This ‘binary’ nature of fitness estimation in seed plants remains legitimate despite that clonal RU offspring are normally all genotypically identical; the same is true of zygotic/seed-derived RU offspring produced by apomixis or from inbred sexual lines (and somatic mutation sometimes means that clonal offspring are not, in fact, genotypically identical). Neither is this fitness estimation compromised if a young clonal RU offspring, during establishment, temporarily receives resource translocation from connection to a parental RU; the same is true for immature zygotic offspring that receive maternal resources within the seed, via female gametophyte or endosperm/ perisperm tissue. Finally, the above fitness estimate also remains uncompromised even if there is facilitation between mature neighbouring RUs that remain connected with lifetime physiological integration; analogous facilitation also occurs routinely between neighbouring RUs in aclonal species.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".