Large Brains and Lengthened Life History Periods in Odontocetes
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work on primates and birds suggests that large brains require longer periods of juvenile growth, leading to reproductive constraints due to delayed maturation. However, longevity is often extended in large-brained species, possibly compensating for delayed maturation. We examined the relationship between brain size and life history periods in cetaceans, a large-brained mammalian order that has been largely ignored. We looked at males and females of twenty-five species of Odontocetes, using independent contrasts and multiple regressions to disentangle possible phylogenetic effects and inter-correlations among life history traits. We corrected all variables for body size allometry and separated life span into adult and juvenile periods. For females and both sexes combined, gestation, time to sexual maturity, time as an adult and life span were all positively associated with residual brain size in simple regressions; in multiple regressions, maximum life span and time as an adult were the best predictors of brain size. Males showed few significant trends. Our results suggest that brain size has co-evolved with extended life history periods in Odontocetes, as it has in primates and birds, and that a lengthened adult period could have been an important component of encephalization in cetaceans.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".