Linking macrotrends and microrates: Re-evaluating microevolutionary support for Cope's rule
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cope's rule, wherein a lineage increases in body size through time, was originally motivated by macroevolutionary patterns observed in the fossil record. More recently, some authors have argued that evidence exists for generally positive selection on individual body size in contemporary populations, providing a microevolutionary mechanism for Cope's rule. If larger body size confers individual fitness advantages as the selection estimates suggest, thereby explaining Cope's rule, then body size should increase over microevolutionary time scales. We test this corollary by assembling a large database of studies reporting changes in phenotypic body size through time in contemporary populations, as well as studies reporting average breeding values for body size through time. Trends in body size were quite variable with an absence of any general trend, and many populations trended toward smaller body sizes. Although selection estimates can be interpreted to support Cope's rule, our results suggest that actual rates of phenotypic change for body size cannot. We discuss potential reasons for this discrepancy and its implications for the understanding of Cope's rule.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".