Next-generation tools for evolutionary invasion analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary invasion analysis is a powerful technique for modelling in evolutionary biology. The general approach is to derive an expression for the growth rate of a mutant allele encoding some novel phenotype, and then to use this expression to predict long-term evolutionary outcomes. Mathematically, such 'invasion fitness' expressions are most often derived using standard linear stability analyses from dynamical systems theory. Interestingly, there is a mathematically equivalent approach to such stability analyses that is often employed in mathematical epidemiology, and that is based on so-called 'next-generation' matrices. Although this next-generation matrix approach has sometimes also been used in evolutionary invasion analyses, it is not yet common in this area despite the fact that it can sometimes greatly simplify calculations. The aim of this article is to bring the approach to a wider evolutionary audience in two ways. First, we review the next-generation matrix approach and provide a novel, and easily intuited, interpretation of how this approach relates to more standard techniques. Second, we illustrate next-generation methods in evolutionary invasion analysis through a series of informative examples. Although focusing primarily on evolutionary invasion analysis, we provide several insights that apply to biological modelling in general.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".