Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Somatic growth is a fundamental property of living organisms, and is of particular importance for species with indeterminate growth that can change in size continuously throughout their life. For example, fishes can increase in size by 2–6 orders of magnitude during their lifetime, resulting in changes in production, consumption and function at the ecosystem scale. Within species, growth rates are traded off against other life‐history parameters, hence an accurate description of growth is essential to understand the comparative demography, productivity, fisheries yield and extinction risk of populations and species. The growth trajectory of indeterminate growing sharks and rays (elasmobranchs) and bony fishes (teleosts) is usually modelled using a three‐parameter logarithmic function, the von Bertalanffy growth function ( VBGF ), to describe the total length of the average individual at any given age. Recently, however, a two‐parameter form has gained popularity. Rather than being estimated in the model fitting process, the third y‐intercept parameter ( L 0 ) of the VBGF has been interpreted as being biologically equivalent to, and thus fixed as, the empirically estimated size at birth. We tested the equivalence assumption that L 0 is the same or similar to size at birth by comparing empirical estimates of size at birth available from the literature with estimates of L 0 from published data from elasmobranchs, and found that even though there is an overlap of values, there is a high degree of variability between them. We calculate the bias in the growth coefficient ( k ) of the VBGF by comparison between the two‐ and three‐parameter estimation methods. We show that slight deviations in fixed L 0 can cause considerable bias in growth estimates in the two‐parameter VBGF while providing no benefit even when L 0 matches the true value. We show that the effect of this biased growth estimate has profound consequences for fisheries stock status. We strongly recommend the use of the three‐parameter VBGF and discourage use of the two‐parameter VBGF because it results in substantially biased growth estimates even with slight variations in the value of fixed L 0 .
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it