MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952321693 · doi:10.1002/evl3.98

Indirect genetic effects clarify how traits can evolve even when fitness does not

2019· article· en· W2952321693 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Fisher, Andrew G. McAdam

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaladaptationNatural selectionFitness landscapeAdaptation (eye)Selection (genetic algorithm)Context (archaeology)Social evolutionInclusive fitnessAdaptabilityGenetic FitnessVariance (accounting)Evolutionary biologyBiologyComputer scienceEcologyArtificial intelligencePopulationGeneticsEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are many situations in nature where we expect traits to evolve but not necessarily for mean fitness to increase. However, these scenarios are hard to reconcile simultaneously with Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection (FTNS) and the Price identity (PI). The consideration of indirect genetic effects (IGEs) on fitness reconciles these fundamental theorems with the observation that traits sometimes evolve without any adaptation by explicitly considering the correlated evolution of the social environment, which is a form of transmission bias. Although environmental change is often assumed to be absent when using the PI, here we show that explicitly considering IGEs as change in the social environment with implications for fitness has several benefits: (1) it makes clear how traits can evolve while mean fitness remains stationary, (2) it reconciles the FTNS with the evolution of maladaptation, (3) it explicitly includes density-dependent fitness through negative social effects that depend on the number of interacting conspecifics, and (4) it allows mean fitness to evolve even when direct genetic variance in fitness is zero, if related individuals interact and/or if there is multilevel selection. In summary, considering fitness in the context of IGEs aligns important theorems of natural selection with many situations observed in nature and provides a useful lens through which we might better understand evolution and adaptation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations47
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolution LettersSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207