ReviewBehavioral ecology and sociobiology2022
Genetic conflicts and the case for licensed anthropomorphizing.
Review in Behavioral ecology and sociobiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Open questions in the social lives of viruses.Journal of evolutionary biology · 2023Review
- How to make an inclusive-fitness model.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of intentional language in biology is controversial. It has been commonly applied by researchers in behavioral ecology, who have not shied away from employing agential thinking or even anthropomorphisms, but has been rarer among researchers from more mechanistic corners of the discipline, such as population genetics. One research area where these traditions come into contact-and occasionally clash-is the study of genetic conflicts, and its history offers a good window to the debate over the use of intentional language in biology. We review this debate, paying particular attention to how this interaction has played out in work on genomic imprinting and sex chromosomes. In light of this, we advocate for a synthesis of the two approaches, a form of licensed anthropomorphizing. Here, agential thinking's creative potential and its ability to identify the fulcrum of evolutionary pressure are combined with the rigidity of formal mathematical modeling.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.