Institutions and the transmission of upper-tail human capital: scientific lineages across a millennium

Historians have reconstructed the twentieth-century transformation of general relativity and gravitation (GRG) at the field level and through individual careers, but connecting these scales requires a way to compare researchers with the changing field over time. We develop such a comparison, setting a researcher's publications and references against GRG field literature from the same, earlier, and later two-year periods. Building on Own Vocabulary and Embedding Density Estimation from our earlier two-case study (arXiv:2501.00391), we extend the analysis to the fifty most-published authors in a NASA/ADS corpus of about 180,000 GRG records (1911 to 2000) and add two citation-based measures, Referenced Vocabulary and Citation Identity. The four measures compare an author's written language, cited literature, semantic neighbourhood, and cited-authority configuration with the surrounding field. The earlier cases suggested that closer field-vocabulary alignment accompanies a denser semantic neighbourhood. Across the fifty authors this holds only partially. Written and cited vocabularies tend to move together, usually resembling later GRG literature as the field turned towards astrophysical and cosmological research. Semantic neighbourhoods more often lie where the field's publications were concentrated in earlier periods, while co-citation patterns follow no single temporal direction, and the two citation measures frequently place the same researcher differently despite drawing on identical reference lists. Individual trajectories can thus combine vocabulary tied to later field states with older semantic or citation structures, and these divergent cases mark patterns for closer historical investigation. The approach transfers to other fields with defensible corpus boundaries and adequate coverage of texts, references, and disambiguated author identities.

We extracted the scholarly reasoning systems of two internationally prominent humanities and social science scholars from their published corpora alone, converted those systems into structured inference-time constraints for a large language model, and tested whether the resulting scholar-bots could perform core academic functions at expert-assessed quality. The distillation pipeline used an eight-layer extraction method and a nine-module skill architecture grounded in local, closed-corpus analysis. The scholar-bots were then deployed across doctoral supervision, peer review, lecturing and panel-style academic exchange. Expert assessment involved three senior academics producing reports and appointment-level syntheses. Across the preserved expert record, all review and supervision reports judged the outputs benchmark-attaining, appointment-level recommendations placed both bots at or above Senior Lecturer level in the Australian university system, and recovered panel scores placed Scholar A between 7.9 and 8.9/10 and Scholar B between 8.5 and 8.9/10 under multi-turn debate conditions. A research-degree-student survey showed high performance ratings across information reliability, theoretical depth and logical rigor, with pronounced ceiling effects on a 7-point scale, despite all participants already being frontier-model users. We term this the Relic condition: when publication systems make stable reasoning architectures legible, extractable and cheaply deployable, the public record of intellectual labor becomes raw material for its own functional replacement. Because the technical threshold for this transition is already crossed at modest engineering effort, we argue that the window for protective frameworks covering disclosure, consent, compensation and deployment restriction is the present, while deployment remains optional rather than infrastructural.

Scientific ideas rarely start from a blank page. They inherit mechanisms, repair known limitations, and recombine pieces of earlier work, much like biological genomes. Current benchmarks still say little about whether AI systems can follow this inheritance structure. We present IdeaGene-Bench (IG-Bench), a benchmark for scientific lineage reasoning and lineage-grounded idea generation. IG-Bench is organized around the IdeaGene framework: each paper or proposal is represented as a set of minimal, typed, evidence-grounded Idea Genome objects, and a GenomeDiff aligns these objects to record inheritance, mutation, loss, external import, and novel insertion under six operational evolutionary dynamics. The benchmark contains 1,961 golden lineage traces, 1,085 curated Idea Genome objects, and 920 pairwise GenomeDiff records across 10 scientific domains. It supports two evaluations. IG-Exam (42 task types, 1,029 instances) tests closed-form lineage reasoning across Idea Genome abstraction, inheritance tracing, evolutionary reasoning, and lineage verification. IG-Arena evaluates generation with a lineage-conditioned Population-Evolution Score(PES), asking whether a proposal can be inserted as a coherent descendant of a given lineage population: it should inherit the right Idea Genome objects, vary meaningfully from nearby work, and offer selection value for future research. Experiments on 14 LLM-based scientists expose a compositional bottleneck. The strongest system reaches only 27.3% exact accuracy on lineage reasoning, and structured lineage context reshuffles system rankings rather than helping every participant uniformly.