The Overlooked Legacy: Genetic Contributions of the Childless
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childless individuals have historically faced stigma with assumptions that they lack an interest in future generations because they do not directly contribute to genetic lineage. Individuals share approximately half of their genes with siblings, 12.5% with first cousins, and 6.25% with first cousins' children. Norwegian census data (2005-2023), reflecting similar trends to the US, UK, and other European countries, indicates a moderate difference in the number of siblings (Parents: 2.03 [women and men]; Childless: 1.88 [women], 1.94 [men]) and nieces/nephews (Parents: 3.99 [women], 4.03 [men]; Childless: 3.32 [women], 3.42 [men]) for 514,777 women and 532,834 men, respectively. By linking four generations through grandmothers, both childless and childbearing women had a slightly higher number of biological extended family members (Parents: 9.63 cousins with 15.79 children; Childless: 8.66 cousins with 12.22 children). Linking four generations for men, numbers were similar: Parents: 9.68 cousins with 15.91 children, Childless: 8.83 cousins with 12.44 children. Based on the average number of children who are parents, the childless have an average genetic fitness that is 49% of that for parents for the next generation. Both parents and childless individuals have a stake in future generations through their biological extended family.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".