Molecular patterns and processes in evolving sociality: lessons from insects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social insects have provided some of the clearest insights into the origins and evolution of collective behaviour. Over 20 years ago, Maynard Smith and Szathmáry defined the most complex form of insect social behaviour-superorganismality-among the eight major transitions in evolution that explain the emergence of biological complexity. However, the mechanistic processes underlying the transition from solitary life to superorganismal living in insects remain rather elusive. An overlooked question is whether this major transition arose via incremental or step-wise modes of evolution. We suggest that examination of the molecular processes underpinning different levels of social complexity represented across the major transition from solitary to complex sociality can help address this question. We present a framework for using molecular data to assess to what extent the mechanistic processes that take place in the major transition to complex sociality and superorganismality involve nonlinear (implying step-wise evolution) or linear (implying incremental evolution) changes in the underlying molecular mechanisms. We assess the evidence for these two modes using data from social insects and discuss how this framework can be used to test the generality of molecular patterns and processes across other major transitions. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue 'Collective behaviour through time'.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".