Paradoxical persistence through mixed-system dynamics: towards a unified perspective of reversal behaviours in evolutionary ecology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Counterintuitive dynamics of various biological phenomena occur when composite system dynamics differ qualitatively from that of their component systems. Such composite systems typically arise when modelling situations with time-varying biotic or abiotic conditions, and examples range from metapopulation dynamics to population genetic models. These biological, and related physical, phenomena can often be modelled as simple financial games, wherein capital is gained and lost through gambling. Such games have been developed and used as heuristic devices to elucidate the processes at work in generating seemingly paradoxical outcomes across a spectrum of disciplines, albeit in a field-specific, ad hoc fashion. Here, we propose that studying these simple games can provide a much deeper understanding of the fundamental principles governing paradoxical behaviours in models from a diversity of topics in evolution and ecology in which fluctuating environmental effects, whether deterministic or stochastic, are an essential aspect of the phenomenon of interest. Of particular note, we find that, for a broad class of models, the ecological concept of equilibrium reactivity provides an intuitive necessary condition that must be satisfied in order for environmental variability to promote population persistence. We contend that further investigations along these lines promise to unify aspects of the study of a range of topics, bringing questions from genetics, species persistence and coexistence and the evolution of bet-hedging strategies, under a common theoretical purview.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".