BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

Alexander J. Stewart

Alexander J. Stewart contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
Populations and Evolutionphysics.soc-phecon.TH

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 15 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
3works
0followers
3topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

3 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Eco-evolutionary tradeoffs in the dynamics of prion strain competition

Prion and prion-like molecules are a type of self replicating aggregate protein that have been implicated in a variety of neurodegenerative diseases. Over recent decades the molecular dynamics of prions have been characterized both empirically and through mathematical models, providing insights into the epidemiology of prion diseases, and the impact of prions on the evolution of cellular processes. At the same time, a variety of evidence indicates that prions are themselves capable of a form of evolution, in which changes to their structure that impact their rate of growth or fragmentation are replicated, making such changes subject to natural selection. Here we study the role of such selection in shaping the characteristics of prions under the nucleated polymerization model (NPM). We show that fragmentation rates evolve to an evolutionary stable value which balances rapid reproduction of $PrP^{Sc}$ aggregates with the need to produce stable polymers. We further show that this evolved fragmentation rate differs in general from the rate that optimizes transmission between cells. We find that under the NPM, prions that are both evolutionary stable and optimized for transmission have a characteristic length of $3n$, i.e three times the critical length below which they become unstable. Finally we study the dynamics of inter-cellular competition between strains, and show that the eco-evolutionary tradeoff between intra- and inter-cellular competition favors coexistence.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Group reciprocity and the evolution of stereotyping

Stereotypes are generalized beliefs about groups of people, which are used to make decisions and judgments about them. Although such heuristics can be useful when decisions must be made quickly, or when information is lacking, they can also serve as the basis for prejudice and discrimination. In this paper we study the evolution of stereotypes through group reciprocity. We characterize the warmth of a stereotype as the willingness to cooperate with an individual based solely on the identity of the group they belong to. We show that when stereotypes are coarse, such group reciprocity is less likely to evolve, and stereotypes tend to be negative. We also show that, even when stereotypes are broadly positive, individuals are often overly pessimistic about the willingness of those they stereotype to cooperate. We then show that the tendency for stereotyping itself to evolve is driven by the costs of cognition, so that more people are stereotyped with greater coarseness as costs increase. Finally we show that extrinsic "shocks", in which the benefits of cooperation are suddenly reduced, can cause stereotype warmth and judgement bias to turn sharply negative, consistent with the view that economic and other crises are drivers of out-group animosity.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

The natural selection of good science

Scientists in some fields are concerned that many, or even most, published results are false. A high rate of false positives might arise accidentally, from shoddy research practices. Or it might be the inevitable result of institutional incentives that reward publication irrespective of veracity. Recent models and discussion of scientific culture predict selection for false-positive publications, as research labs that publish more positive findings out-compete more diligent labs. There is widespread debate about how scientific practices should be modified to avoid this degeneration. Some analyses suggest that "bad science" will persist even when labs are incentivized to undertake replication studies, and penalized for publications that later fail to replicate. Here we develop a framework for modelling the cultural evolution of research practices that allows labs to expend effort on theory - enabling them, at a cost, to focus on hypotheses that are more likely to be true on theoretical grounds. Theory restores the evolution of high effort in laboratory practice, and it suppresses false-positive publications to a technical minimum, even in the absence of replication. In fact, the mere ability choose between two sets of hypotheses - one with greater chance of being correct than the other - promotes better science than can be achieved by having effortless access to the better set of hypotheses. Combining theory and replication can have a synergistic effect in promoting good scientific methodology and reducing the rate of false-positive publications. Based on our analysis we propose four simple rules to promote good science in the face of pressure to publish.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access