MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391250961 · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109055

Effects of environmental feedback on species with finite population

2024· article· en· W4391250961 on OpenAlexaff
Jia‐Xu Han, Rui‐Wu Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueiScience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China-Yunnan Joint FundNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsNatural selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)PreferenceNegative feedbackPopulationCompetition (biology)Positive feedbackEvolutionary biologyBiologyEcologyNatural (archaeology)Computer scienceMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an unchanging environment, natural selection always selects species with high fitness. In this study, we build a co-evolutionary system to study the interaction between stochasticity in finite populations and environmental feedback. Positive feedback between species and environment is detrimental to the invasion success, whereas negative feedback is beneficial to invasion since feedback makes population size important enough to revise natural selection's preference. In competition scenario, positive and negative feedback will benefit the initially inferior species. When selection intensity is high, negative feedback may even cause natural selection to favor the initially inferior species. All of these effects are caused by feedback that allows the initially inferior species to have greater fitness than the initially dominant species. Our results emphasize that the effects of stochasticity in evolutionary path can be reinforced by feedback with environment and then reverse the preference of natural selection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.003
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueiScienceSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207