DIRECTIONAL SELECTION IN TEMPORALLY REPLICATED STUDIES IS REMARKABLY CONSISTENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporal variation in selection is a fundamental determinant of evolutionary outcomes. A recent paper presented a synthetic analysis of temporal variation in selection in natural populations. The authors concluded that there is substantial variation in the strength and direction of selection over time, but acknowledged that sampling error would result in estimates of selection that were more variable than the true values. We reanalyze their dataset using techniques that account for the necessary effect of sampling error to inflate apparent levels of variation and show that directional selection is remarkably constant over time, both in magnitude and direction. Thus we cannot claim that the available data support the existence of substantial temporal heterogeneity in selection. Nonetheless, we conject that temporal variation in selection could be important, but that there are good reasons why it may not appear in the available data. These new analyses highlight the importance of applying techniques that estimate parameters of the distribution of selection, rather than parameters of the distribution of estimated selection (which will reflect both sampling error and "real" variation in selection); indeed, despite availability of methods for the former, focus on the latter has been common in synthetic reviews of the aspects of selection in nature, and can lead to serious misinterpretations.
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 | 0.116 | 0.338 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".