MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344843069 · doi:10.1534/genetics.116.188409

How Life History Can Sway the Fixation Probability of Mutants

2016· article· en· W2344843069 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Xiangyi Li, Shun Kurokawa, Stefano Giaimo, Arne Traulsen

Bibliographic record

VenueGenetics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Max Planck Research School for Advanced Methods in Process and Systems EngineeringUniversity of TorontoUniversity of GlasgowInternational Max Planck Research School for Environmental, Cellular and Molecular Microbiology
KeywordsFixation (population genetics)BiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Evolutionary biologyPopulation structureEvolutionary dynamicsPopulationReproductionLife historyGeneticsMutantDemographyEcologyGeneComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this work, we study the effects of demographic structure on evolutionary dynamics when selection acts on reproduction, survival, or both. In contrast to the previously discovered pattern that the fixation probability of a neutral mutant decreases while the population becomes younger, we show that a mutant with a constant selective advantage may have a maximum or a minimum of the fixation probability in populations with an intermediate fraction of young individuals. This highlights the importance of life history and demographic structure in studying evolutionary dynamics. We also illustrate the fundamental differences between selection on reproduction and selection on survival when age structure is present. In addition, we evaluate the relative importance of size and structure of the population in determining the fixation probability of the mutant. Our work lays the foundation for also studying density- and frequency-dependent effects in populations when demographic structures cannot be neglected.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeneticsSame topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207