Examining Community Stability in the Face of Mass Extinction in Communities of Digital Organisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Digital evolution is a computer-based instantiation of Darwinian evolution in which short self-replicating computer programs compete, mutate, and evolve. It is an excellent platform for addressing topics in long-term evolution and paleobiology, such as mass extinction and recovery, with experimental evolutionary approaches. We evolved model communities with ecological interdependence among community members, which were subjected to two principal types of mass extinction: a pulse extinction that killed randomly, and a selective press extinction involving an alteration of the abiotic environment to which the communities had to adapt. These treatments were applied at two different strengths, along with unperturbed control experiments. We examined how stability in the digital communities was affected from the perspectives of division of labor, relative shift in rank abundance, and genealogical connectedness of the community's component ecotypes. Mass extinction that was due to a Strong Press treatment was most effective in producing reshaped communities that differed from the pre-treatment ones in all of the measured perspectives; weaker versions of the treatments did not generally produce significant departures from a Control treatment; and results for the Strong Pulse treatment generally fell between those extremes. The Strong Pulse treatment differed from others in that it produced a slight but detectable shift towards more generalized communities. Compared to Press treatments, Pulse treatments also showed a greater contribution from re-evolved ecological doppelgangers rather than new ecotypes. However, relatively few Control communities showed stability in any of these metrics over the whole course of the experiment, and most did not represent stable states (by some measure of stability) that were disrupted by the extinction treatments. Our results have interesting, broad qualitative parallels with findings from the paleontological record, and show the potential of digital evolution studies to illuminate many aspects of mass extinction and recovery by addressing them in a truly experimental manner.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".