Integrating economic and evolutionary approaches to polygynous marriage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
. Evolutionary scholars are concerned with the fitness consequences of competition and economists are centrally concerned with the nature of competition: how the allocation of scarce resources is mediated by potentially complex forms of social interaction and conflicts of interest. We illustrate our argument by focusing on conceptual and empirical approaches to a topic of interest to economists and evolutionary scholars: polygynous marriage. In comparing conceptual approaches, we distinguish between those that emphasise the physical environment and those that emphasise the social environment. We discuss some advantages of analysing marriage through the lens of competitive markets, and outline some of the ways that economists analyse the emergence of rules governing the family. In discussing empirical approaches to polygynous marriage, we describe how a concern for informing contemporary policy leads economists to focus on the consequences of polygyny, and in particular we describe some of the ways in which economists attempt to distinguish causal effects from selection effects.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it