Diverse perspectives from diverse scholars are vital for theoretical biology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Science is based on studying some aspects of the world while holding others constant. The assumptions of what can and cannot be ignored implicitly shape our understanding of the world around us. This truth is particularly evident when studying biology through mathematical models, where one must explicitly state assumptions during the process of model building. Although we often recognize that all models are “wrong” in their assumptions, we often overlook the corollary that developing multiple models that are wrong in different ways can help us triangulate truth in our understanding. Theoretical biologists build models in the image of how they envision the world, an image that is shaped by their scientific identity, experiences, and perspectives. A lack of diversity in any of these axes handicaps our ability to understand biological systems through theory. However, we can overcome this by collectively recognizing our own assumptions, by understanding how perspective shapes the development of theory, and — most importantly — by increasing the diversity of theoretical biologists (in terms of identity, experiences, and perspectives). Combined, this will lead to developing theory that provides a richer understanding of the biological world.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".