Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20509012›Full record

ArticleTheory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften2010

Pattern, process and the evolution of meaning: species and units of selection.

André Levy

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The relativity of biological function.Theory in biosciences = Theorie in den Biowissenschaften · 2015
    Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

André LevyUnidade de Investigação em Eco-Etologia, ISPA-Instituto Universitário, Lisbon, Portugal. andre_levy@ispa.pt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many of the fundamental concepts of biology lack consensual, precise definitions. Partly, this is due to a contrast between our discrete language and the continuous character of nature. Some debates over these concepts are confounded by the use of the same terms with different specific meanings, indicating a possible need for an expanded scientific lexicon. Words have their own histories, and frequently scientific terms with a vernacular origin retain associated vestigial meanings. Even terms newly coined within science have histories and changing meanings, which can lead to confusion among debaters. Debates over concepts are further confounded when the same terms are used in different fields of biology, with distinct (even conflicting) objectives, and by biologists with different approaches and perspectives. I illustrate these issues by considering the debate over the concept of species and the unit of selection.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionPhenotypeSelection, GeneticTerminology as TopicAdaptation, BiologicalBiologyGenetic SpeciationSpecies Specificity

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.