It’s about time: the temporal dynamics of phenotypic selection in the wild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection is a central process in nature. Although our understanding of the strength and form of selection has increased, a general understanding of the temporal dynamics of selection in nature is lacking. Here, we assembled a database of temporal replicates of selection from studies of wild populations to synthesize what we do (and do not) know about the temporal dynamics of selection. Our database contains 5519 estimates of selection from 89 studies, including estimates of both direct and indirect selection as well as linear and nonlinear selection. Morphological traits and studies focused on vertebrates were well-represented, with other traits and taxonomic groups less well-represented. Overall, three major features characterize the temporal dynamics of selection. First, the strength of selection often varies considerably from year to year, although random sampling error of selection coefficients may impose bias in estimates of the magnitude of such variation. Second, changes in the direction of selection are frequent. Third, changes in the form of selection are likely common, but harder to quantify. Although few studies have identified causal mechanisms underlying temporal variation in the strength, direction and form of selection, variation in environmental conditions driven by climatic fluctuations appear to be common and important.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".