Simulating the evolution of height in the Netherlands in recent history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Dutch have a remarkable history when it comes to height. From being one of the shortest European populations in the 19th Century, the Dutch grew some 20 cm and are currently the tallest population in the world. Wealth, hygiene, and diet are well-established contributors to this major increase in height. Some have suggested that natural selection may also contribute to the trend, but evidence is weak. Here, we investigate the potential role of natural selection in the increase in height through simulations. We first ask what if natural selection was solely responsible for the observed increase in height? If the increase in average height was fully due to natural selection on male height, then across six consecutive generations, men who were two standard deviation above average height would need to have eight times more children on average. If selection acted only through those who have the opportunity to reproduce, then reproduction would need to be restricted to the tallest third (37%) of the population in order to give rise to the stark increase in height over time. No linear relationship between height and child mortality is able to account for the increase over time. We then present simulations based on previously observed estimates of partnership, mortality, selection and heritability and show that natural selection had a negligible effect (estimates from 0.07 to 0.36 cm) on the increase in height in the period 1850 to 2000. Our simulations highlight the plasticity of height and how remarkable the trend in height is in evolutionary terms. Only by using a combination of methods and insights from different disciplines, including biology, demography, and history are we potentially able to address how much of the increase in height is due to natural selection versus other causes.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".