DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SELECTION ON SEX VERSUS RECOMBINATION IN RED QUEEN MODELS WITH DIPLOID HOSTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Red Queen hypothesis argues that parasites generate selection for genetic mixing (sex and recombination) in their hosts. A number of recent papers have examined this hypothesis using models with haploid hosts. In these haploid models, sex and recombination are selectively equivalent. However, sex and recombination are not equivalent in diploids because selection on sex depends on the consequences of segregation as well as recombination. Here I compare how parasites select on modifiers of sexual reproduction and modifiers of recombination rate. Across a wide set of parameters, parasites tend to select against both sex and recombination, though recombination is favored more often than is sex. There is little correspondence between the conditions favoring sex and those favoring recombination, indicating that the direction of selection on sex is often determined by the effects of segregation, not recombination. Moreover, when sex was favored it is usually due to a long-term advantage whereas short-term effects are often responsible for selection favoring recombination. These results strongly indicate that Red Queen models focusing exclusively on the effects of recombination cannot be used to infer the type of selection on sex that is generated by parasites on diploid hosts.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".