Economic Natural Selection: Interpretation of Natural Selection as Economic Selection in the Evolutionary Process
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
The paper proposes that natural selection hypothesis in the theory of evolution can properly be interpreted as economic selection in that the species that have adapted successfully to their changing environment through the optimizing economic behaviors resulting in efficient allocation of scarce resources have been selected by nature in the evolutionary process. It is the species’ optimizing rational economic behaviors rather than their superior intellectual or physical strength that are responsible for their being naturally selected. In that sense, natural selection may be interpreted as economic natural selection. The paper presents the evidence that the species that have survived the natural selection process in general including the human species behave rationally through constrained dynamic optimizing behaviors which result in efficient allocation of scarce resources through decentralized decision making without a central coordination or control with the result that such species are selected by nature over those that do not.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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