The evolution of sociality in aphids: a clone's-eye view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of aphid species produce individuals, termed soldiers, that defend the colony by attacking predators. Soldiers have either reduced or zero direct reproductive fitness. Their behavior is therefore altruistic in the classical sense: an individual is behaving in a way that incurs reproductive costs on itself and confers reproductive benefits on another. However, comparison with the better–known eusocial insects (Hymenoptera, Isoptera) indicates that there are important differences between clonal and sexual social animals. Here we take a clone's–eye view and conclude that many facets of aphid sociality are best thought of in terms of resource allocation: for example, the choice between investment in defense and reproduction. This view considerably simplifies some aspects of the problem and highlights the qualitatively different nature of genetic heterogeneity in colonies of aphids and of other social insects. In sexually reproducing social insects, each individual usually has a different genome, which leads to genetic conflicts of interest between individuals. In social aphids, all members of a clone have identical genomes, barring new mutations, and there should be no disagreement among clonemates about investment decisions. Genetic heterogeneity within colonies can arise, but principally through clonal mixing, and this means that investment decisions will vary between different clones rather than among all individuals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".