Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pauly has argued for the generalization of von Bertalanffy growth models in fish, based on fundamental geometric relationships between surface area and volume. Recent evidence indicates growth curves of squids rise much more rapidly than those of fish, which appears to be in conflict with such geometric generalizations. Although the generalizations have recently been questioned even for fish, it remains important to establish that squid geometries differ greatly from those of fish. We measured key dimensions from a locomotory perspective in squid with masses from 100 μg paralarvae to 100 kg giants (nine orders of magnitude) and modelled their growth allometries. Elongation of the “hollow tubes” characterizing squid form, as well as increasing fin size contrasts with the relatively constant form of growing fish. When expressed as the dimensionless ratio of surface area1/2/volume1/3 (the “Vogel number”) cod show a small decrease, whereas the ratio for squid increases two-fold over the range for which data is available. The consequences for growth are potentially large because squid respire directly through these surfaces.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".