Data from: Solving the paradox of stasis: squashed stabilizing selection and the limits of detection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the potential for rapid evolution, stasis is commonly observed over geological timescales – the so-called “paradox of stasis.” This paradox would be resolved if stabilizing selection were common, but stabilizing selection is infrequently detected in natural populations. We hypothesize a simple solution to this apparent disconnect: stabilizing selection is hard to detect empirically once populations have adapted to a fitness peak. To test this hypothesis, we developed an individual-based model of a population evolving under an invariant stabilizing fitness function. Stabilizing selection on the population was infrequently detected in an “empirical” sampling protocol, because (1) trait variation was low relative to the fitness peak breadth; (2) non-selective deaths masked selection; (3) populations wandered around the fitness peak; and (4) sample sizes were typically too small. Moreover, the addition of negative frequency-dependent selection further hindered detection by flattening or even dimpling the fitness peak, a phenomenon we term “squashed stabilizing selection”. Our model demonstrates that stabilizing selection provides a plausible resolution to the paradox of stasis despite its infrequent detection in nature. The key reason is that selection “erases its traces”: once populations have adapted to a fitness peak, they are no longer expected to exhibit detectable stabilizing selection.
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
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".