MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corrigendum

2012· erratum· en· W4238085695 on OpenAlexaff
Geoff Wild, Andrew D. Fernandes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Evolutionary Biology · 2012
Typeerratum
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiological dispersalRange (aeronautics)Interval (graph theory)Line (geometry)CombinatoricsBiologyMathematicsDemographyGeometryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When z = 0, helpful mutant natives can invade. Panel (a) presents the level curves of the surface (1 − p2r)/r(1 − p2) for heights 10,20,30,…,90 (left to right). Each level curve shows the pairs of N and p that correspond to the same invasion condition (eqn 5, Wild & Fernandes, 2009). Because we have also assumed b/c<N, the shape of the level curves tells us that helping may, under certain circumstances, be adaptive. For example, consider panel (b). If N=60 (dotted line) and if p belongs to the interval indicated, then (1 − p2r)/r(1 − p2) can be no >52 and so the conditions (1 − p2r)/r(1−p2)<b/c<N can be easily satisfied. Indeed, panel (b) shows us that the scope for invasion by helpful mutants is greatest for intermediate values of p. In the general model, we find that under a range of b/c values allows both complete nonhelping (z = 0) and complete helping (z = 1) to simultaneously be ES native behaviours. In this figure, the endpoints of this range of b/c values are estimated numerically. Panels on the left show how the upper end of the range (estimated to lie between paired circles) depends on the natal dispersal rate for various patch sizes N. Panels on the right do the same for the lower end of the range (estimated to lie between paired crosses). Panels in row (a) assume no cost of dispersal μ = 0, panels in row (b) assume moderate costs of dispersal μ = 0.4, whereas panels in row (c) assume high cost of dispersal μ = 0.8. Interestingly, we find that the estimated upper end of each range of b/c values (bounded by circles), i.e. the value of b/c beyond which complete helping is the only ES native behaviour, corresponds exactly to the critical b/c ratio identified in eqn 5 of Wild & Fernandes (2009) for a special case of the model (‘‘weak fecundity effects’’). The critical b/c ratio is illustrated, here, in all panels as a solid curve. It should be noted that when p=(1 − m), we recover the measure of relatedness used by El Mouden & Gardner (2008) (their RN, eqn 4). This new expression for r, and the associated derivation (not shown), replaces the last two equations of Appendix B in the study by Wild & Fernandes (2009). We sincerely regret any inconvenience our error may have caused.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Evolutionary BiologySame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207