Data from: Why is sterility virulence most common in sexually transmitted infections? examining the role of epidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sterility virulence, or the reduction in host fecundity due to infection, occurs in many host-pathogen systems. Notably, sterility virulence is more common for sexually-transmitted infections (STIs) than for directly-transmitted pathogens, while other forms of virulence tend to be limited in STIs. This has led to the suggestion that sterility virulence may have an adaptive explanation. By focusing upon finite population models, we show that the observed patterns of sterility virulence can be explained by consideration of the epidemiological differences between STIs and directly-transmitted pathogens. In particular, when pathogen transmission is predominantly density-invariant (as for STIs), and mortality is density-dependent, sterility virulence can be favoured by demographic stochasticity, whereas if pathogen transmission is predominantly density-dependent, as is common for most directly-transmitted pathogens, sterility virulence is disfavoured. We show these conclusions can hold even if there is a weak selective advantage to sterilizing.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.046 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".