ASSORTATIVE MATING FOR FITNESS AND THE EVOLUTION OF RECOMBINATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand selection on recombination, we need to consider how linkage disequilibria develop and how recombination alters these disequilibria. Any factor that affects the development of disequilibria, including nonrandom mating, can potentially change selection on recombination. Assortative mating is known to affect linkage disequilibria but its effects on the evolution of recombination have not been previously studied. Given that assortative mating for fitness can arise indirectly via a number of biologically realistic scenarios, it is plausible that weak assortative mating occurs across a diverse set of taxa. Using a modifier model, we examine how assortative mating for fitness affects the evolution of recombination under two evolutionary scenarios: selective sweeps and mutation-selection balance. We find there is no net effect of assortative mating during a selective sweep. In contrast, assortative mating could have a large effect on recombination when deleterious alleles are maintained at mutation-selection balance but only if assortative mating is sufficiently strong. Upon considering reasonable values for the number of loci affecting fitness components, the strength of selection, and the mutation rate, we conclude that the correlation in fitness between mates is unlikely to be sufficiently high for assortative mating to affect the evolution of recombination in most species.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".