↓ Skip to main content

Heterogeneity in background fitness acts as a suppressor of selection

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Theoretical Biology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Heterogeneity in background fitness acts as a suppressor of selection
Published in
Journal of Theoretical Biology, November 2013
DOI 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.10.013
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oliver P. Hauser, Arne Traulsen, Martin A. Nowak

Abstract

We introduce the concept of heterogeneity in background fitness to evolutionary dynamics in finite populations. Background fitness is specific to an individual but not linked to its strategy. It can be thought of as a property that is related to the physical or societal position of an individual, but is not dependent on the strategy that is adopted in the evolutionary process under consideration. In our model, an individual's total fitness is the sum of its background fitness and the fitness derived from using a specific strategy. This approach has important implications for the imitation of behavioural strategies: if we imitate others for their success, but can only adopt their behaviour and not their social and economic ties, we may imitate in vain. We study the effect of heterogeneity in background fitness on the fixation of a mutant strategy with constant fitness. We find that heterogeneity suppresses selection, but also decreases the time until a novel strategy either takes over the population or is lost again. We derive analytical solutions of the fixation probability in small populations. In the case of large total background fitness in a population with maximum inequality, we find a particularly simple approximation of the fixation probability. Numerical simulations suggest that this simple approximation also holds for larger population sizes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 51 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 28%
Student > Bachelor 11 21%
Researcher 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 17%
Unknown 7 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 23%
Physics and Astronomy 8 15%
Mathematics 4 8%
Computer Science 3 6%
Social Sciences 3 6%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 October 2014.
All research outputs
#16,721,208
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Theoretical Biology
#2,475
of 4,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,040
of 228,787 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Theoretical Biology
#13
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 228,787 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.