The spatial patterns of directional phenotypic selection
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
Local adaptation, adaptive population divergence and speciation are often expected to result from populations evolving in response to spatial variation in selection. Yet, we lack a comprehensive understanding of the major features that characterise the spatial patterns of selection, namely the extent of variation among populations in the strength and direction of selection. Here, we analyse a data set of spatially replicated studies of directional phenotypic selection from natural populations. The data set includes 60 studies, consisting of 3937 estimates of selection across an average of five populations. We performed meta-analyses to explore features characterising spatial variation in directional selection. We found that selection tends to vary mainly in strength and less in direction among populations. Although differences in the direction of selection occur among populations they do so where selection is often weakest, which may limit the potential for ongoing adaptive population divergence. Overall, we also found that spatial variation in selection appears comparable to temporal (annual) variation in selection within populations; however, several deficiencies in available data currently complicate this comparison. We discuss future research needs to further advance our understanding of spatial variation in selection.
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) | 0.001 | 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 it