Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evolutionary theory has long been influenced by modern synthesis thinking, which focuses on the theoretical primacy of genes and the fractionation of evolution into four discrete, quasi-independent processes: (i) inheritance, (ii) development, (iii) mutation, and (iv) natural selection. Recent challenges to modern synthesis orthodoxy, leveled at the fractionation of evolution and the attendant theoretical privilege accorded to genes, are driven by empirical advances in the understanding of inheritance and development. This article argues that inheritance holism, the idea that the contribution of genes to the pattern of inheritance cannot generally be differentiated from the contribution of extragenetic causes, invalidates the modern synthesis conception of inheritance as the transmission of replicants. Moreover, recent empirical understandings of development erode the fractionated view of evolution, which has misconstrued the role of natural selection. Development not only involves inheritance and the generation of novelties but is the source of the adaptive bias in evolution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.004 |
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".