MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402710348 · doi:10.1101/2024.09.16.613329

Multilevel selection on individual and group social behaviour in the wild

2024· preprint· en· W4402710348 on OpenAlexaff
Conner S. Philson, Julien G. A. Martin, Daniel T. Blumstein

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvolutionary Game Theory and Cooperation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroup selectionSelection (genetic algorithm)Group (periodic table)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The degree to which phenotypes are shaped by multilevel selection – the theoretical framework proposing natural selection occurs at more than one level of biological organisation – is a classic debate in biology. Though social behaviours are a common theoretical example for multilevel selection, it is unknown if and how multilevel selection acts on sociality in the wild. We studied the relative strength of multilevel selection on both individual behaviour and group social structure, quantified with social networks and 19 years of data from a wild, free-living mammal, the yellow-bellied marmot ( Marmota flaviventer ). Contextual analysis revealed multilevel selection in specific fitness and life history contexts, with selection for group social structure being just as strong, if not stronger, than individual social behaviour. We also found antagonistic multilevel selection within and between levels, potentially explaining why increased sociality is not as beneficial or heritable in this system comparatively to other social taxa. Thus, the evolutionary dynamics of hierarchal or nested biological traits should be assessed at multiple levels simultaneously to tell a more accurate and comprehensive story. Overall, we provide empirical evidence suggesting that multilevel selection acts on social relationships and structures in the wild, and provide direct evidence for a classic, unanswered question in biology.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.953
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicEvolutionary Game Theory and CooperationFrench-language works237,207