MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156110639 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1408

An inclusive fitness analysis of synergistic interactions in structured populations

2012· article· en· W2156110639 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Taylor, Wes Maciejewski

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlleleAllele frequencyGeneralizationPopulationSelection (genetic algorithm)Frequency-dependent selectionFitness landscapeBiologyDoveGenetic FitnessMathematicsEvolutionary biologyGeneticsComputer scienceBiological evolutionArtificial intelligenceGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the evolution of a pair of competing behavioural alleles in a structured population when there are non-additive or 'synergistic' fitness effects. Under a form of weak selection and with a simple symmetry condition between a pair of competing alleles, Tarnita et al. provide a surprisingly simple condition for one allele to dominate the other. Their condition can be obtained from an analysis of a corresponding simpler model in which fitness effects are additive. Their result uses an average measure of selective advantage where the average is taken over the long-term--that is, over all possible allele frequencies--and this precludes consideration of any frequency dependence the allelic fitness might exhibit. However, in a considerable body of work with non-additive fitness effects--for example, hawk-dove and prisoner's dilemma games--frequency dependence plays an essential role in the establishment of conditions for a stable allele-frequency equilibrium. Here, we present a frequency-dependent generalization of their result that provides an expression for allelic fitness at any given allele frequency p. We use an inclusive fitness approach and provide two examples for an infinite structured population. We illustrate our results with an analysis of the hawk-dove game.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207