Bridging the gap between theory and data: the Red Queen Hypothesis for sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sexual reproduction persists in nature despite its large cost. The Red Queen Hypothesis postulates that parasite pressure maintains sexual reproduction in the host population by selecting for the ability to produce rare genotypes that are resistant to infection. Mathematical models have been used to lay theoretical foundations for the hypothesis; empirical studies have confirmed these predictions. For example, Lively used a simple host-parasite model to predict that the frequency of sexual hosts should be positively correlated with the prevalence of infection. Lively et al. later confirmed the prediction through numerous field studies of snail-trematode systems in New Zealand. In this study, we fit a simple metapopulation host-parasite coevolution model to three data sets, each representing a different snail-trematode system, by matching the observed prevalence of sexual reproduction and trematode infection among hosts. Using the estimated parameters, we perform a power analysis to test the feasibility of observing the positive correlation predicted by Lively. We discuss anomalies in the data that are poorly explained by the model and provide practical guidance to both modelers and empiricists. Overall, our study suggests that a simple Red Queen model can only partially explain the observed relationships between parasite infection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction.
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 | 0.016 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".