MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414350072 · doi:10.1093/evolut/qpaf182

The change in a mean measurement that is invariant under reshuffling of genes

2025· article· en· W4414350072 on OpenAlexafffund
Sabin Lessard

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEvolution and Genetic Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCovarianceSexual reproductionNatural selectionInvariant (physics)Quantitative geneticsInterpretation (philosophy)ReproductionMating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fisher's fundamental theorem of natural selection continues to be widely cited in the literature but there is still misunderstanding about its interpretation and significance. Even though it is now recognized that the additive genetic variance in its statement captures only a partial rate of change in mean fitness, the original terms and arguments used to present it remain unclear, not to mention its real meaning. Here, we revisit the interpretation of this partial rate of change. Applying the properties of the additive genetic values and residual addends of a quantitative trait to the relative growth rate of genotype frequency in a diploid population, and comparing two reproductive systems, clonal reproduction and sexual reproduction with either random union of gametes or random mating with additive fecundities of mating types, we argue that this additive genetic rate of change corresponds to the change that is invariant under reshuffling of genes. We show that this is actually the case for the partial rate of change in the mean of any measurement given by the additive genetic covariance with fitness. We focus on the one-locus multiallele setting in continuous time without age effects for simplicity, but the conclusion can be extended to multilocus settings with age effects in continuous time as well as discrete time.

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 score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.238

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.241 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicEvolution and Genetic DynamicsFrench-language works237,207