Evaluating the role of reproductive constraints in ant social evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The reproductive division of labour is a key feature of eusociality in ants, where queen and worker castes show dramatic differences in the development of their reproductive organs. To understand the developmental and genetic basis underlying this division of labour, we performed a molecular analysis of ovary function and germ cell development in queens and workers. We show that the processes of ovarian development in queens have been highly conserved relative to the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster. We also identify specific steps during oogenesis and embryogenesis in which ovarian and germ cell development have been evolutionarily modified in the workers. These modifications, which we call 'reproductive constraints', are often assumed to represent neutral degenerations that are a consequence of social evolutionary forces. Based on our developmental and functional analysis of these constraints, however, we propose and discuss the alternative hypothesis that reproductive constraints represent adaptive proximate mechanisms or traits for maintaining social harmony in ants. We apply a multi-level selection framework to help understand the role of these constraints in ant social evolution. A complete understanding of how cooperation, conflict and developmental systems evolve in social groups requires a 'socio-evo-devo' approach that integrates social evolutionary and developmental biology.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".