MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413036503 · doi:10.1098/rstb.2024.0089

Darwinizing Gaia: conceptual approaches

2025· review· en· W4413036503 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicEarth Systems and Cosmic Evolution
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyNatural selectionReproductionNatural (archaeology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Environmental ethicsEcologyPhilosophyHistoryComputer scienceBiologyArtificial intelligenceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After briefly describing James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis, I will argue that Gaia does not reproduce, or rather that it has what Peter Godfrey-Smith would call ‘too many parents’ to undergo natural selection according to Lewontin’s Recipe. So the hypothesis did not and still does not make sense to most Darwinians. If (i)Lewontin’s Recipe were extended to include differential persistence as well as differential reproduction, (ii) part/whole relationships were accepted as a form of ‘reproduction’, or (iii) the ‘gene’s-eye view’ of Richard Dawkins as further extended by David Hull and us were adopted, then the Gaia hypothesis, and lesser claims about some multispecies communities, holobionts and ecosystems, would make sense. This last is what the It’s the song not the singer(s ) theory aimed to do. This article is part of the discussion meeting issue ‘Chance and purpose in the evolution of biospheres’.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.089 · 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