TRANSITION RATES BETWEEN SPECIALIZATION AND GENERALIZATION IN PHYTOPHAGOUS INSECTS
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 most species of animals exhibit specialized patterns of resource use, it is unclear whether specialization evolves at a faster rate than generalization. To test this hypothesis, transition rates toward specialization and toward generalization were estimated using phylogenies from 15 groups of phytophagous insects. Among the groups studied, maximum-likelihood analyses showed that the forward transition rate from generalization to specialization was significantly higher than the reverse transition rate from specialization to generalization (mean ratio of forward to reverse transition rate = 1.47 using uniform branch lengths and 1.76 using Grafen branch lengths). Although phylogenetic conservatism of host-plant use is common, the results suggest that the evolution of specialization is a highly dynamic process. For example, higher transitions rates both toward and away from specialization as well as equal transition rates were inferred. Collectively, the results reveal a tendency for directional evolution toward increased specialization but also indicate that specialization does not always represent an evolutionary dead-end that strongly limits further evolution.
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