MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Chance Variation and Evolutionary Contingency: Darwin, Simpson, <i>The Simpsons</i>, and Gould

2009· book-chapter· en· W2626329762 on OpenAlexaff
John Beatty

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDarwin (ADL)Natural selectionVariation (astronomy)Selection (genetic algorithm)ContingencyPopulationPhenomenonAdaptive evolutionEvolutionary biologyNatural (archaeology)EpistemologyGenealogyBiologySociologyPhilosophyDemographyComputer scienceHistoryArtificial intelligencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The unpredictability of evolution by natural selection was given by Stephen Gould. Darwin is associated with chance variation but Paley argued that living things are the products of design. Simpson, for each case of directional evolution, either denied the phenomenon or offered an alternative explanation that did not rely on any unknown causal processes. According to Simpson, there were two main reasons to explain why evolution is unpredictable. The first is that evolution is driven principally by natural selection of chance variations and is termed “opportunistic” as there is no plan or provision by which organisms automatically vary in ways that are adaptive. The second reason is that there are “multiple solutions” to any environmental “problem”. Gould gave the hypothesis that the traits that predominate in a population are optimal for the environment inhabited by the population, and hence if different traits prevail in different populations, this must reflect environmental differences.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooksSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207