Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 57 references

When it pays to teach: a population threshold for dedicated teaching

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a population must exceed a critical size before dedicating anyone to teaching raises per-capita productivity, and that the optimal teaching share peaks at intermediate group sizes and never exceeds one half.

desk verdict The equations hold up; the small-group gloss does not—nc can be below 1, and the Methods proof swaps two cases. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02327 v1 pith:QGXUENFZ submitted 2025-07-03 q-bio.PE

Hirotaka Goto , Joshua B. Plotkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PE MSC 92D15
keywords dedicatedteachingdivisionoflaborpopulationthresholdoptimalteacherallocationper-capitaproductivityculturaltransmissiongroupsizesize-complexityhypothesis
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Why a group would set aside people purely to teach others is the puzzle this paper addresses. The authors model a well-mixed population that splits into amateur hunters, expert hunters, and dedicated teachers who never hunt, with all hunting gains shared equally. Their central claim is that the per-capita productivity-maximizing teacher share is zero below a critical group size $n_c=(1+r\eta)(1+\eta)/(\nu(r-1))$, rises to a peak at an intermediate population size, and can never exceed one half. If the model is right, small groups should never create a dedicated teaching class, and no productivity-optimizing society should ever put a majority of its members into teaching, while more complex multi-level skills generate successive teaching tiers as the group grows.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the productivity function $F(\tau;n)=(1-\tau)W(\tau;n)$, the product of the workforce fraction and a weighted-average hunting rate $W$ that rises with teacher number. $W$ is a concave function of $\tau$, so $F$ is concave in the teacher fraction; its marginal value at zero teachers, $\partial_\tau F(0;n)$, increases linearly with $n$. This structure forces two regimes: for small $n$ productivity decreases monotonically with $\tau$, and for large $n$ the intermediate-value theorem plus concavity give a unique interior optimum, producing closed-form expressions for $n_c$, $n^*$, and the bound $\tau_{\rm opt}^*<1/2$.

What would settle it

Measure per-capita productivity in real or simulated groups of several sizes below and above the predicted $n_c$, with teacher fraction varied in controlled steps. The model requires productivity to be maximized at zero teachers whenever $n<n_c$ and at a unique positive fraction when $n>n_c$; a single group below $n_c$ whose measured productivity peaks at a positive teacher fraction would falsify the threshold claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central discovery is a population threshold for dedicated teaching. At equilibrium of the mass-action dynamics, per-capita productivity is $F(\tau;n)=\frac{(1-\tau)(h_0+h_1(\eta+\nu\tau n))}{1+\eta+\nu\tau n}$; optimizing over $\tau$ gives $\tau_{\rm opt}=0$ for $n<n_c$ and $\tau_{\rm opt}=\tau_+$ for $n>n_c$, where $n_c=\frac{(1+r\eta)(1+\eta)}{\nu(r-1)}$. A critical population size of this type appears across all the model variants considered; in the finite-capacity variant teaching is worthwhile only when the half-saturation size $K$ exceeds $n_c$, and the optimal teacher share then saturates at a positive value instead of decaying to zero. The paper also proves that the maximal optimal teacher fraction is always below $1/2$, scales as $\frac{1}{4(1+\eta)}(r-1)$ when the advantage of expertise is small, and shows that in a three-level model two sequential transitions occur: teachers appear at one critical size and begin instructing intermediate students only above a second, larger critical size.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the group maximizes per-capita productivity and that everyone shares equally in the gains from acquired skill; if individual incentives or kinship decide who teaches, the threshold and the fifty-percent cap are not necessarily what evolves.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A group with population size below $n_c$ maximizes per-capita productivity with zero dedicated teachers, even when expertise cannot be acquired by self-learning.
  • The optimal teacher share peaks at an intermediate population size and then declines roughly as $1/n$ for large populations in the baseline model.
  • No choice of parameters in the baseline model makes it optimal for more than half the population to teach; the uniform upper bound is one half.
  • With finite teaching capacity, a dedicated teacher class pays only when the capacity half-saturation size $K$ exceeds $n_c$, and the optimal teacher share then tends to a positive constant rather than to zero.
  • With three levels of expertise, teaching turns on at a first critical size and starts targeting intermediate students only above a second, larger critical size.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the group-level sharing assumption is replaced by individual- or kin-level selection, the threshold would become a function of relatedness and of who captures the returns to skill; small kin groups might then evolve teaching even below $n_c$.
  • The 50% cap is a sharp diagnostic: a real society or organization with more than half its members in non-producing instructional roles cannot be explained by this productivity-sharing mechanism alone and needs a different incentive story.
  • The sequential thresholds in the three-stage model suggest a testable account of institutional growth: beginner-level instruction should appear before advanced-level instruction as a school, firm, or laboratory grows; data on training budgets by organization size could test this ordering.
  • The finite-capacity model predicts that measured per-teacher contact rates, not just the teacher ratio, should determine whether teaching pays; comparing groups of different sizes with the same apparent teacher share would discriminate between bounded and unbounded teaching capacity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a mean-field ODE model of a fixed-size population divided into amateur hunters, expert hunters, and dedicated teachers, and asks what teacher fraction maximizes equilibrium per-capita productivity. The authors derive a critical population size nc below which the continuous optimum teacher fraction is zero (Eq. 7), show that the optimum rises and then falls with population size, and prove a uniform upper bound of 1/2 (Eq. 9) plus an asymptotic 25% rule near r = 1. They then extend the model to part-time teaching, finite teaching capacity, and three levels of expertise, and compare the results with empirical frequencies of teaching roles. The main advertised conclusions are that dedicated teaching requires a minimum group size, peaks at intermediate population sizes, never exceeds half the population, and that the three-stage model exhibits a two-tier transition in teacher allocation.

Significance. If the results are stated precisely, the paper provides a clean, analytically tractable optimization model of a teacher class, with closed-form expressions for the threshold, the optimal teacher fraction, and its upper bounds. The derivations in Eqs. (3)-(9) are transparent and self-contained, and the inequalities hold for all parameter values rather than being fitted to data. The model also generates falsifiable comparative statics, such as nc decreasing in education efficiency ν and in the expertise advantage r, which are useful for future empirical work. The main limitations are interpretive: the real-valued threshold nc does not by itself guarantee that small integer-sized groups should have no teachers, and the three-stage conclusions rely on a continuity assumption that the authors acknowledge may fail. These issues are fixable but currently affect the paper's headline claims.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section IV and Eq. (7)] The Discussion claim that "nobody should be dedicated to teaching when the group size is very small, even when the skill cannot be self-learned" is not a consequence of Eq. (7). Since all parameters are only constrained to be positive, nc can be arbitrarily small: for h0=1, h1=10, f=1, μ=10, λ=0.001, Eq. (7) gives nc≈0.011, so a group of n=2 is already above the threshold. For this example the continuous model gives τ+≈0.167, and the discrete model of Section C gives nT=1 (τ=1/2) as optimal because F(1/2)≈4.59 versus F(0)≈1.01. The correct statement is that teaching is optimal only for n>nc, without asserting that nc is large or that small groups in general lack teachers. This wording should be corrected in the abstract and Discussion, since it is the paper's central interpretive claim.
  2. [Section V.B and Section III.D] The proof of the existence of nc contains a swapped case analysis. The text states that when ∂τF(0;n)>0, "F decreases monotonically from F(0;n)>0 to F(1;n)=0, implying the absence of a peak," and that when ∂τF(0;n)<0, the intermediate value theorem gives a peak. The opposite is true: a positive derivative at τ=0, combined with ∂τF(1;n)<0 and concavity (∂²τF<0), implies a unique interior maximum, whereas a negative derivative at τ=0 implies monotone decrease. The same reversal appears in Section III.D. The corrected argument is straightforward and the formulas are otherwise correct, but this is the main formal proof of the threshold result and must be fixed.
  3. [Section III.I and Supporting Information III] The two-tier transition in the three-stage model is derived under the ad hoc assumption that the optimal τ emerges continuously from 0 and the optimal α emerges continuously from 1. The paper itself notes that simulations suggest discontinuous transitions "in some parameter regime" and therefore that the method does not cover those cases. As written, however, the main text presents the two critical population sizes n*c and n*α and the sequential transition as general findings. The claims should either be explicitly restricted to the parameter regime where the continuity assumption holds, or a proof should be supplied; otherwise the size-complexity conclusion in the Discussion is stronger than the analysis supports.
  4. [Table III and Section III.H] The caption of Table III states that all six extended models exhibit "a minimum population size required before teacher allocation is beneficial," and Section III.H repeats this for the first four models. This is contradicted by the finite-capacity model in the same section: when K<nc, the model gives τopt=0 for all n, so no positive threshold exists. The text should distinguish the K>nc case from the K<nc case and should not assert the threshold phenomenon for all six models.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section III.C] The sentence claiming that the numbers in the set {τopt(n)n} are not integers is an overstatement: τopt(n)n may be integer for isolated parameter values or population sizes. What is true is that the continuous optimum need not coincide with an integer teacher count, which is the point of the discrete model.
  2. [Section III.D] The phrase "In the first regime" is confusing because two regimes are defined immediately before. Rewording to "If ∂τF(0;n)<0" and "If ∂τF(0;n)>0" would remove the ambiguity and also fix the case reversal noted above.
  3. [Section III.I] The conjectured upper bound M/(M-1) for the M-stage model should be flagged as a conjecture in the Results section as well as in the text where it is introduced, so that it is not mistaken for a proved theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's threshold, 50% bound, and 25% bound all follow from the stated ODE and productivity objective without fitting or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section II states the model (Eq. 1) and the per-capita productivity objective (Eq. 2), with all parameters positive and no parameter fitted to the conclusions. Section III.A differentiates F with respect to the teacher fraction τ, solves the first-order condition to obtain Eq. 5, and then defines τopt = 0 for n < nc and τopt = τ+ for n > nc (Eq. 6), with the critical population size nc = (1 + rη)(1 + η)/(ν(r − 1)) (Eq. 7). Section V.B proves concavity and monotonicity properties of ∂F/∂τ that guarantee nc is the unique positive solution of ∂τF(0; n) = 0, so the threshold is a derived consequence of the model rather than an input. The 50% rule follows algebraically from Eq. 9, and the 25% rule follows from a Taylor expansion of G(x) in the r → 1 limit; neither is borrowed from prior work. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the literature comparisons in Section IV (e.g., Tannenbaum's threshold, chaperone abundances, OECD teacher fractions) are ex pos t illustrations and empirical anchors, not inputs used to set model parameters or to derive the inequalities. The skeptical concern that nc can be smaller than 1, so a two-individual group can optimally have one teacher, is an interpretation issue at the integer boundary, not circularity: the formal claim is τopt = 0 for real n < nc, and the paper's own discrete Markov model (Section III.C) explicitly addresses integrality by flooring and ceiling the continuous prediction. The Discussion's phrase 'nobody should be dedicated to teaching when the group size is very small' overstates the formal result because nc has no lower bound above 1, but this over-interpretation does not make the derivation circular. Overall, the central claims reduce neither to defined quantities nor to self-citation; they are algebraic consequences of the stated assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model introduces no new physical or biological entities. Its parameters are inputs, not fitted values, and the central inequalities hold for all allowed parameter ranges. The main structural assumptions are equal sharing of rewards, well-mixed mass-action teaching, and, in the three-stage extension, continuity of the optimal teacher allocation.

free parameters (4)
  • η (self-learning efficiency, λ/f)
    Model parameter; chosen for simulations (e.g., η=0.01 in Fig. 2). Central results hold for all η≥0, so no fitted value is required.
  • ν (education efficiency, μ/f)
    Model parameter; chosen for simulations. The threshold and bounds scale with ν but hold for all ν>0.
  • r (advantage of expertise, h1/h0)
    Model parameter with r>1. The 50% bound is uniform in r; the 25% rule is asymptotic as r→1.
  • K (teaching half-saturation in the finite-capacity model)
    Introduced in the extension χ(n)=K/(n+K). The condition K>nc determines whether teachers are ever optimal; K is not fitted to data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The population is well-mixed and teaching follows mass action, with education rate μ n_T n_0.
    Eq. 1 assumes a teacher can reach any amateur; relaxed in the finite-capacity model.
  • domain assumption Teachers do not hunt, and per-capita productivity is the quantity optimized.
    Eq. 2 and the optimization over τ define the model; the Discussion notes this assumes rewards are shared equally.
  • standard math The linear ODE has a unique stable equilibrium for each (τ,n).
    The two-state dynamics with positive rates admits a unique attracting equilibrium, used in Eq. 3.
  • ad hoc to paper In the three-stage model, optimal τ and α emerge continuously from 0 and 1 respectively.
    Supporting Information Section III imposes this to locate n_c and n_α; the authors note discontinuous transitions may occur for some parameters.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of When it pays to teach: a population threshold for dedicated teaching." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QGXUENFZ

@misc{pith2026250702327,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: When it pays to teach: a population threshold for dedicated teaching},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QGXUENFZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02327}
}
read the original abstract

Teachers hold a prominent place in modern societies, particularly where education is compulsory and widely institutionalized. This ubiquity obscures an underlying question: why do societies designate certain individuals exclusively for the instruction of others? This question is especially enigmatic for dedicated teachers, who invest their labor in cultivating others' skills but do not directly participate in the productive activities for which their students are being trained. To address this puzzle, we develop a simple, mathematically tractable model of teaching and learning in a population with a shared goal. We identify a tradeoff between the size of the workforce and its collective level of expertise; and we analyze the optimal proportion of a population that should serve as teachers across a wide range of scenarios. We show that a population must exceed a critical size before it is beneficial to allocate anyone as a dedicated teacher at all. Subsequently, the peak demand for teachers is achieved at an intermediate population size, and it never surpasses one half of the population. For more complicated tasks, our analysis predicts the optimal allocation of teachers across different levels of expertise. The structure of this teacher allocation is more complex when the population size is large, in agreement with the general size-complexity hypothesis. Our account lays a foundation for understanding the adaptive advantage of dedicated teachers in both human and non-human societies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02327 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic illustration of the population structure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The optimal proportion of teachers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Theoretical predictions for realizable optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The 25% rule of thumb (asymptotic tight upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The optimal proportion of teachers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The optimal proportion of teachers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Optimal proportion of teachers or fraction of time de [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_1.png]
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The ratio of expert hunters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Substituting this equilibrium into Eq

    = (1 2 τ)n 1 + η + ντ n(1, η + ντ n), (3) where we have introduced two rescaled parameters: the self-learning efficiency η = λ/f and the education effi- ciency ν = µ/f . Substituting this equilibrium into Eq. 2, we obtain the equilibrium per-capita productivity as a function of teacher proportion and total population size: F (τ; n) = (1 2 τ) h0 + h1(η + ντ n)...

    work page

  2. [2]

    To understand this, we point out that the per-capita produc- tivity F (see Eq

    work page

  3. [3]

    A. J. L. Macario and E. Conway de Macario, in Encyclo- pedia of Stress (Elsevier, 2007) pp. 438–444

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    is a product of the relative frequency of hunters 1 2 τ and a weighted average of the two hunt- 4 ing rates [ h0 + h1(η + ντ n)] / (1 +η + ντ n), which always falls between h0 and h1 by definition. If the population size n is small, then, improving the weight-averaged hunt- ing rate by increasing the frequency of teachers not only fails to cancel out the c...

    work page

  5. [5]

    As this expression shows, there is a critical population size nc required before it is beneficial to dedicate anyone to teaching, given by nc = (1 + rη)(1 + η) ν(r 2 1)

    with positive sign. As this expression shows, there is a critical population size nc required before it is beneficial to dedicate anyone to teaching, given by nc = (1 + rη)(1 + η) ν(r 2 1) . (7) 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 population size, n 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05optimal teacher proportion, τopt τopt nÇ FIG. 2. The optimal proportion of teachers τopt a...

    work page

  6. [6]

    go up” first and then “go down

    Let n0 and n1 be both nonnegative integers. Over a small time interval, we stipulate that the number of amateur (or expert) hunters either increases or decreases by at most one. Since there are three possi- ble events—self-learning, education, and forgetting—the transition (n0, n 1) ³ (n0+1, n 121) occurs with probabil- ity f n1/p tot, and the transition ...

    work page

  7. [7]

    tion G(x) := x 2 1:x (1 + :x) , x > 1, which can be approximated as G(x) j G 2(1)(x 2 1) = 1 2 (x 2 1) around x = 1, up to first order

    2, f = 5. tion G(x) := x 2 1:x (1 + :x) , x > 1, which can be approximated as G(x) j G 2(1)(x 2 1) = 1 2 (x 2 1) around x = 1, up to first order. Piecing together the above and previous results, we find that the highest opti- mal proportion of teachers τ7 opt has a tight upper-bound τ7 opt ≲ 1 4(1 + η) (r 2 1) in the limit r ³ 1 (see Supporting Information ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    and population size is intermediate; on the other hand, the asymptotic tight upper bound on τ is valid only in the regime where the relative advantage of expertise r21 is small (Fig. 5). Moreover, the asymptotic bound depends upon r because it describes how fast τ7 opt decreases as the advantage of expertise decreases (i.e., r ³ 1). 7 H. Six Extended Mode...

    work page

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    M -stage model

    The first critical population size n7 c occurs when the need for any teachers emerges for the first time. The second critical population size n7 α occurs when the op- timal proportion of teachers α opt assigned to the second stage of skill acquisition becomes nonzero; in other w...

  2. [10]

    lower risk of losing essential worker functions if workers are lost,

    3–10% of the proteome [ 27, 28]. At the other end of the spectrum, in human societies, dedicated teachers comprise a small portion of the population: in the U.S., roughly 2 . 5% of the workforce (or 1% of the population) are elementary or secondary teachers [ 29]. The teacher-...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Z. H. Garfield and S. Lew-Levy, Nat. Commun. 16, 3387 (2025)

    2025

  4. [12]

    Allchin, C

    D. Allchin, C. T. Bergstrom, and J. Osborne, J. Coll. Sci. Teach. 53, 40 (2024)

    2024

  5. [13]

    A. L. Møller, S. N. Kehlet, A. S. Siebuhr, N. S. Gud- mann, and M. A. Karsdal, in Biochemistry of Collagens, Laminins and Elastin (Elsevier, 2024) pp. 351–369

    2024

  6. [14]

    M. A. Cant and R. A. Johnstone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105, 5332 (2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    J. E. Coxworth, P. S. Kim, J. S. McQueen, and K. Hawkes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 11806 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    P. S. Kim, J. E. Coxworth, and K. Hawkes, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 279, 4880 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    A. F. Kachel, L. S. Premo, and J. J. Hublin, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 278, 384 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    Hawkes, Nature 428, 128 (2004)

    K. Hawkes, Nature 428, 128 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Blell, in The International Encyclopedia of Anthro- pology (Wiley, 2018) pp

    M. Blell, in The International Encyclopedia of Anthro- pology (Wiley, 2018) pp. 1–5

    2018

  12. [20]

    Hawkes, J

    K. Hawkes, J. F. O’Connell, N. G. Blurton Jones, H. Al- varez, and E. L. Charnov, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 95, 1336 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    Lahdenper¨ a, A

    M. Lahdenper¨ a, A. O. Tanskanen, and M. Danielsbacka, in Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018) pp. 1–5

    2018

  14. [22]

    E. H. Hagen, Z. H. Garfield, and A. D. Lightner, Evol. Hum. Behav. 46, 106651 (2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    Nattrass, D

    S. Nattrass, D. P. Croft, S. Ellis, M. A. Cant, M. N. Weiss, B. M. Wright, E. Stredulinsky, T. Doniol-Valcroze, J. K. B. Ford, K. C. Balcomb, and D. W. Franks, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 116, 26669 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    P. C. Lee, V. Fishlock, C. E. Webber, and C. J. Moss, Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 70, 337 (2016)

    2016

  17. [25]

    Lahdenper¨ a, K

    M. Lahdenper¨ a, K. U. Mar, and V. Lummaa, Sci. Rep. 6, 27213 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    Muller and S

    Z. Muller and S. Harris, Mammal Rev. 52, 1 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    C. W. Gardiner, Handbook of Stochastic Methods for Physics, Chemistry and the Natural Sciences (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1985)

    1985

  20. [28]

    Pichugin, J

    Y. Pichugin, J. Pe˜ na, P. B. Rainey, and A. Traulsen, PLOS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005860 (2017)

    2017

  21. [29]

    D. M. Cornforth, D. J. T. Sumpter, S. P. Brown, and ˚ A. Br¨ annstr¨ om, Am. Nat. 180, 296 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    Tannenbaum, J

    E. Tannenbaum, J. Theor. Biol. 247, 413 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    K. Aoki, J. Y. Wakano, and M. W. Feldman, Current Anthropology 46, 334 (2005)

    2005

  24. [32]

    Fogarty, P

    L. Fogarty, P. Strimling, and K. N. Laland, Evolution 65, 2760 (2011)

    2011

  25. [33]

    Maisonneuve, L

    L. Maisonneuve, L. Lehmann, and C. Mullon, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 292, 20242470 (2025) . 13

    2025

  26. [34]

    Powell and C

    S. Powell and C. Peretz, Insectes Soc. 68, 229 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    M. L. Smith, M. M. Ostwald, J. C. Loftus, and T. D. Seeley, Naturwissenschaften 101, 783 (2014)

    2014

  28. [36]

    M. E. Rebeaud, S. Mallik, P. Goloubinoff, and D. S. Tawfik, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 118, e2020885118 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    Shemesh, J

    N. Shemesh, J. Jubran, S. Dror, E. Simonovsky, O. Basha, C. Argov, I. Hekselman, M. Abu-Qarn, E. Vinogradov, O. Mauer, T. Tiago, S. Carra, A. Ben- Zvi, and E. Yeger-Lotem, Nat. Commun. 12, 2180 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    Irwin, T

    V. Irwin, T. M. Bailey, R. Panditharatna, and A. Sadeghi, Projections of education statistics to 2030 , Tech. Rep. (National Center for Education Statistics,

  31. [39]

    Feinman and J

    G. Feinman and J. Neitzel, in Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory (Elsevier, 1984) pp. 39–102

    1984

  32. [40]

    OECD, Education at a glance 2024: OECD indicators , Tech. Rep. (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2024) [Accessed June 28, 2025]

    2024

  33. [41]

    World Bank, World development indicators (2022), [Ac- cessed June 28, 2025]

    2022

  34. [42]

    E. A. Foster, D. W. Franks, S. Mazzi, S. K. Darden, K. C. Balcomb, J. K. B. Ford, and D. P. Croft, Science 337, 1313 (2012)

    2012

  35. [43]

    Lahdenper¨ a, K

    M. Lahdenper¨ a, K. U. Mar, and V. Lummaa,Front. Zool. 11, 54 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Caplan, U.S

    Z. Caplan, U.S. older population grew from 2010 to 2020 at fastest rate since 1880 to 1890 , Tech. Rep. (U.S. Cen- sus Bureau, 2023) [Accessed June 28, 2025]

    2010

  37. [45]

    P. F. Olesiuk, G. M. Ellis, and J. K. B. Ford, Life his- tory and population dynamics of northern resident killer whales (Orcinus orca) in British Columbia , Tech. Rep. (Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat, 2005)

    2005

  38. [46]

    Ellis, D

    S. Ellis, D. W. Franks, S. Nattrass, T. E. Currie, M. A. Cant, D. Giles, K. C. Balcomb, and D. P. Croft, Sci. Rep. 8, 12833 (2018)

    2018

  39. [47]

    G. M. Feinman, Cross-Cult. Res. 45, 37 (2011)

    2011

  40. [48]

    G. A. Johnson, in Theory and explanation in archaeology (Academic Press, New York, 1982) pp. 389–421

    1982

  41. [50]

    Bell and A

    G. Bell and A. O. Mooers, Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 60, 345 (1997)

    1997

  42. [51]

    J. T. Bonner, Evolution 58, 1883 (2004)

    2004

  43. [52]

    Bell-Roberts, J

    L. Bell-Roberts, J. F. R. Turner, G. D. A. Werner, P. A. Downing, L. Ross, and S. A. West, Nat. Ecol. Evol. 8, 1959 (2024)

    2024

  44. [53]

    Ferguson-Gow, S

    H. Ferguson-Gow, S. Sumner, A. F. G. Bourke, and K. E. Jones, Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 281, 20141411 (2014)

    2014

  45. [54]

    Lahdenper¨ a, V

    M. Lahdenper¨ a, V. Lummaa, S. Helle, M. Tremblay, and A. F. Russell, Nature 428, 178 (2004)

    2004

  46. [55]

    Sear and R

    R. Sear and R. Mace, Evol. Hum. Behav. 29, 1 (2008)

    2008

  47. [56]

    When it pays to teach: a populat ion threshold for dedicated teaching

    C. Mullon and L. Lehmann, Theor. Popul. Biol. 116, 33 (2017). Supporting Information for “When it pays to teach: a populat ion threshold for dedicated teaching” Hirotaka Goto 1 and Joshua B. Plotkin 2, 3 1Graduate School of Advanced Mathematical Sciences, Meiji University, 4-2...

    2017

  48. [57]

    Therefore, the ratio of those numbers at equilibrium is computed by n∗ 1 n∗ 0 = η + ντ χ(n)n

    = (1 2 τ)n 1 + η + ντ χ(n)n (1, η + ντ χ(n)n), where the function χ (n) represents the saturation effect: χ (n) = K n + K . Therefore, the ratio of those numbers at equilibrium is computed by n∗ 1 n∗ 0 = η + ντ χ(n)n. 3 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 population size, n 0.00 0.02 0.04...

  49. [2024]

    [Accessed June 28, 2025]

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.