It is amazing that a paper that is essentially just a vaguer form of Hamilton’s Rule only cites him once.
As it stands, I think the table is incorrect but “right” in the sense that it really depends on which random constants you assign to these calculations, and I can’t see find any evidence of a careful selection in the paper or in his code.
It is amazing that a paper that is essentially just a vaguer form of Hamilton’s Rule only cites him once.
As it stands, I think the table is incorrect but “right” in the sense that it really depends on which random constants you assign to these calculations, and I can’t see find any evidence of a careful selection in the paper or in his code.