Misinterpretation of character scaling: a tale of sexual dimorphism in body shape of common lizards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male-biased sexual dimorphism in head, limbs, and tail scaled to snoutvent length has been reported in many lizard species. Consequently, various hypotheses have been proposed to explain observed body-shape dimorphism. According to the majority of them, the proportions of body components are adaptively related to sexual differences in ecology as well as in reproductive behaviour. Our study shows an alternative, much more parsimonious explanation in the common lizard (Lacerta vivipara). According to our analyses, the exaggeration of a single trait, specifically trunk length in females, may explain the whole pattern of sexual differences in body shape. The only consistent adaptive hypothesis, then, is that females with a larger abdominal cavity, and consequently a longer trunk, have a reproductive advantage. Size-adjusted heads, limbs, and tails traditionally reported to be larger in males than in females, features ascribed to numerous evolutionary mechanisms, thus appear to be just an artifact of inappropriate scaling to a sexually dimorphic trait (snoutvent length). As scaling to a single trait has been routinely used in many studies carried out in animals, we warn against quick interpretations based on such analyses and recommend more cautious inspection of allometries.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".