MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092976030 · doi:10.1086/421539

Test Cases, Resolvability, and Group Selection: A Critical Examination of the Myxoma Case

2004· article· en· W2092976030 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of Science · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Test (biology)Myxoma virusMyxomaGroup (periodic table)Function (biology)Class (philosophy)EpistemologyComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicinePhilosophyVirusBiologyArtificial intelligenceEvolutionary biologyVirologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution of the myxoma virus in Australia has been presented for many years as a test case for the hypothesis that group selection can function effectively ‘in the wild.’ This paper critically examines the myxoma case, and argues that its failure as a test case for this hypothesis has broader implications for debates over the levels of selection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.067
Scholarly communication0.0070.015
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations10
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophy of ScienceSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207