Generalized stacked contact process with variable host fitness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stacked contact process is a three-state spin system that describes the co-evolution of a population of hosts together with their symbionts. In a nutshell, the hosts evolve according to a contact process while the symbionts evolve according to a contact process on the dynamic subset of the lattice occupied by the host population, indicating that the symbiont can only live within a host. This paper is concerned with a generalization of this system in which the symbionts may affect the fitness of the hosts by either decreasing (pathogen) or increasing (mutualist) their birth rate. Standard coupling arguments are first used to compare the process with other interacting particle systems and deduce the long-term behavior of the host–symbiont system in several parameter regions. The spatial model is also compared with its mean-field approximation as studied in detail by Foxall (2019). Our main result focuses on the case where unassociated hosts have a supercritical birth rate whereas hosts associated to a pathogen have a subcritical birth rate. In this case, the mean-field model predicts coexistence of the hosts and their pathogens provided the infection rate is large enough. For the spatial model, however, only the hosts survive on the one-dimensional integer lattice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it