Skip to content
Free planNo credit card requiredStart writing
AI for Research home
AI for Research home
Dashboard
Sign inGet started

Search 250 million research papers

Read the abstract, see who wrote it and who cites it, and get the citation in APA, MLA, Chicago or Harvard.

About 10,000 papers for “selection”

Node selection Object selection

Edwin Carlinet, Graph Matching · 2016

Issue Many max-tree algorithms, some of them being specific to a dedicated task (e.g. filtering) Goal Comparisons of max-tree algorithms have been attempted, but they are partial. Contribution Provide a full and fair comparison of 5 max-tree algorithms and some variations in a common framework, i.e., same hardware, same language (C++) and same outputs.

Cited by 0

Habitat selection model selection.

Scott Jennings (594642), David Lumpkin (11890475), Nils Warnock (11890478) et al. · Figshare · 2021

<p>Model selection results for evaluating differences in foraging habitat selection among wetland habitat types, while accounting for water depth, by GPS-tagged great egrets at Tomales Bay, CA, 2017–2020. K is the number of parameters, Δ AICc is the difference in AICc value between the top model and the current model, and AICc Wt. is the AICc model weight.</p> <p>(DOCX)</p>

Cited by 0Open access

Adverse selection Advantageous selection

2014

e • We use a representative sample of life insurance purchasers from the SIPP. • We find that 62 % of life insurance purchasers are under age 50. • Individuals who have higher mortality are no more likely to hold life insurance. • This analysis finds no compelling evidence for adverse selection for life insurance. • Underwriting and institutional features may mitigate adverse selection. a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:

Cited by 0

DARWIN’S MULTILEVEL SELECTION: INDIVIDUAL SELECTION AND GROUP SELECTION

Batuhan AKGÜNDÜZ · DergiPark (Istanbul University) · 2022

Darwin realized that in order to survive in nature, every organism strives to acquire certain qualities in direction with its needs that will enable it to survive namely to struggle for life. The result of this contention against external conditions has emerged as the advancement of adaptation and all this process has been named as natural selection. Human, as an organism, is also subject to this natural process. But the interrelationship between human's sociability and the process of natural selection have enabled them to develop complex mental faculties and instincts. This fact has created variation in the way of the function of natural selection within the population. Humans are organisms that can co-exist together in society and sacrifice themselves for the other. The preservation of behaviours that are based on the relationship that individual establishes with another in order to ensure the survival of the community and the transfer them to descendants lie in its origin. This process is called group selection. Thus, human is the subject to both individual selection as a result of struggle for life and group selection due to their altruistic attitude acting for the good of the other.

Cited by 0Open access

Selection pressures against multilevel selection

Cultural Evolution Society 2021 2021, Perote-Peña, Juan · Underline Science Inc. · 2021

In this paper I depart from the traditional Price-equation formulation of multilevel selection and introduce a new theoretical approach of a multi-level selection process where phases of intra-group interactions alternate with phases of interaction among groups. I assume that a given genetic allele or cultural trait is maladaptive for individuals bearing it but increases the fitness of others in the same group (like altruism), but groups with a higher fraction of bearers of the trait have an advantage in the inter-group interaction phases and reproduce faster. Two main results are obtained that had remained somehow hidden in the traditional model: (1) For group selection to overcome the opposing effect of individual selection the key factor is the amount of “positive” variation in groups’ reproduction, not the strength of group selection per se. (2) Multilevel selection is vulnerable to invasion by mutants that inhibit the phenotypic effect of the allele or cultural trait in the intra-group phases but allow its expression in the between-group phases, in a similar process that make green beards genes unlikely to evolve. By discriminating its phenotypic effects depending on appropriate cues in both environments, the mutated trait restores the selfish behavior when it serves the individual but maintains the altruistic effect when it serves both the group and the individual. This can be interpreted as breaking the “public good” link of the original allele or trait regarding its positive effect in the inter-group competition in relation to its detrimental effects in the intra-group competition phases.

Cited by 0Open access

Selection Bias and Self-Selection

James J. Heckman · The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics · 1987

The problem of selection bias in economic and social statistics arises when a rule other than simple random sampling is used to sample the underlying population that is the object of interest. The distorted representation of a true population as a consequence of a sampling rule is the essence of the selection problem. Distorting selection rules may be the outcome of decisions of sample survey statisticians, self-selection decisions by the agents being studied or both.

Cited by 17

Selection Regimes and Selection Errors

Dmitry Sharapov, Linus Dahlander · Organization Science · 2025

How can the selection of innovation projects be designed to reduce false positives and false negatives? Prior research has provided theoretical insights into organizing to reduce errors, yet we know little about how organizations adapt selection over time and the effects of this on selection outcomes. Drawing from qualitative data from 126 interviews conducted over several years, we explore how an accelerator evolved through three selection regimes for high-stakes funding decisions, focusing on the organizational changes and their underlying reasons. We then analyze quantitative data from all 3,580 submissions they received, assessing false positives and false negatives across these regimes. Our findings reveal a persistent occurrence of both types of errors, with relatively small differences across the regimes despite deliberate efforts to enhance the process. In the final regime, which increased submission quality by emphasizing applicant track record and adding additional layers of screening, evaluators surprisingly became more prone to making selection errors. This finding stands net of accounting for (1) differences in the pool of submissions, (2) differences in treatment effects through training and resources provided, (3) learning, and (4) market evolution. By combining qualitative and quantitative data, we explain this through two mechanisms: (1) mean reversion in combination with increased emphasis on applicant track record and (2) within-type adverse selection enabled by a more stringent selection process. The study reveals that evolving an organization’s selection regime may require adjustments across multiple aspects, resulting in unintended consequences. Supplemental Material: The online appendix is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2023.17482 .

Cited by 1Open access

Goal selection vs action selection.

Etienne Moullet (13531926), Agnès Roby-Brami (4057294), Emmanuel Guigon (70661) · Figshare · 2022

<p><b>A</b>. The motor system contains: (1) a process, called action selection (<i>AS</i>; <i>purple</i>), which translates a current goal (e.g. a target to reach) into the proper displacement of the current effector (e.g. the arm) toward the goal (the target); (2) a process, called goal selection (<i>GS</i>; <i>orange</i>), which provides the current goal for a given task. <b>B</b>. Schematic of adaptation to a force field perturbation (only the early phase of movement is described). The small circle is the starting position, the double circle the goal position, the black arrow the planned displacement, and the gray arrow the actual (or observed) displacement. (<i>left</i>) For a planned displacement toward the goal position, the force field (<i>black</i> leftward arrows) induces an initial actual displacement in the direction of the perturbation. (<i>center</i>) Adaptation at the <i>AS</i> level consists in keeping the same goal position and applying compensatory forces (<i>purple</i> rightward arrows). (<i>right</i>) Adaptation at the <i>GS</i> level consists in re-aiming toward a new goal position (<i>orange</i> double circle). <b>C</b>. Schematic of adaptation to a rotation of the visual display. (<i>left</i>) For a planned displacement toward the goal position, the rotation induces an initial actual displacement in the direction of the rotation. (<i>center</i>) Adaptation at the <i>AS</i> level consists in keeping the same goal position and applying compensatory rotation (purple rightward arrow). (<i>right</i>) Adaptation at the <i>GS</i> level consists in re-aiming toward a new goal position (<i>orange</i> double circle).</p>

Cited by 0Open access

C-selection and S-selection

J.E.J.M. Odijk · TU/e Research Portal (Eindhoven University of Technology) · 1997

Pesetsky (1982) suggere que les verbes qui selectionnent semantiquement (s-selection) un argument de certains types semantiques (ex : question, proposition, exclamation) selectionnent categoriellement (c-selection) a la fois des SProp et des SN. Les SN, toutefois, ne peuvent pas apparaitre s'ils ne peuvent pas etre marques par le cas. De cette maniere, les proprietes de c-selection derivent des proprietes de s-selection. L'A. montre ici non seulement que la c-selection ne peut pas etre reduite a une combinaison de la s-selection et de proprietes syntaxiques, mais que les propres exemples de Pesetsky ne permettent pas d'appuyer sa these et que la generalisation de Grimshaw sur laquelle il se base n'est pas correcte

Cited by 17