IS SURVIVORSHIP A BETTER FITNESS SURROGATE THAN FECUNDITY?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fitness depends on both survivorship and fecundity, we tend to assume fecundity relates to fitness more directly than survivorship. In fact, several recent ecological studies suggest fitness depends more heavily on annual survivorship than annual fecundity for most taxa with lifespans longer than one year. These studies review elasticities of transition matrices for a broad range of taxa. Elasticities covary monotonically with selection gradients for demographic rates and are identical to selection gradients for traits rescaled to have mean values of zero and variance of one. For all taxa except semelparous perennial plants, adult survivorship has consistently higher elasticity than other suites of demographic rates. Fecundity only rarely has the highest elasticity. Thus, differences in yearly survival affect fitness disproportionately more than differences in yearly fecundity, even in many exponentially growing populations. This pattern reinforces the importance of interpreting the contribution of vital rates to fitness in the context of life history and population dynamics.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it