Evolutionary Predictions Should Be Based on Individual‐Level Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent theoretical studies have analyzed the evolution of habitat specialization using either the logistic or the Ricker equation. These studies have implemented evolutionary change directly in population-level parameters such as habitat-specific intrinsic growth rates r or carrying capacities K. This approach is a shortcut to a more detailed analysis where evolutionary change is studied in underlying morphological, physiological, or behavioral traits at the level of the individual that contribute to r or K. Here we describe two pitfalls that can occur when such a shortcut is employed. First, population-level parameters that appear as independent variables in a population dynamical model might not be independent when derived from processes at the individual level. Second, patterns of covariation between individual-level traits are usually not conserved when mapped to the level of demographic parameters. Nonlinear mappings constrain the curvature of trade-offs that can sensibly be assumed at the population level. To illustrate these results, we derive a two-habitat version of the logistic and Ricker equations from individual-level processes and compare the evolutionary dynamics of habitat-specific carrying capacities with those of underlying individual-level traits contributing to the carrying capacities. Finally, we sketch how our viewpoint affects the results of earlier studies.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".