Bibliographic record
Abstract
Why do we age? Since ageing is a near-universal feature of complex organisms, a convincing theory must provide a robust evolutionary explanation for its ubiquity. This theory should be compatible with the physiological evidence that ageing is largely due to deterioration, which is, in principle, reversible through repair. Moreover, this theory should also explain why natural selection has favoured organisms that first improve with age (mortality rates decrease) and then deteriorate with age (mortality rates rise). We present a candidate for such a theory of life history, applied initially to a species with determinate growth. The model features both the quantity and the quality of somatic capital, where it is optimal to initially build up quantity, but to allow quality to deteriorate. The main theoretical result of the paper is that a life history where mortality decreases early in life and then increases late in life is evolutionarily optimal. In order to apply the model to humans, in particular, we include a budget constraint to allow intergenerational transfers. The resultant theory then accounts for all our basic demographic characteristics, including menopause with extended survival after reproduction has ceased.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.007 |
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".