Consequences of assuming an incorrect error structure in von Bertalanffy growth models: a simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The underlying sources of growth variability in a population cannot generally be known, so when modelling growth it is important to understand the consequences of assuming an incorrect error structure. In this study, four error models for a von Bertalanffy growth curve with asymptotic length parameter L∞ and growth rate parameter k are considered. Simulations are carried out in which data are generated according to one of the models and fitted assuming each of the models to be true. This is done for two types of data: direct age–length and tag–recapture. For direct age–length data, the consequences of not accounting for individual growth variability, or assuming the wrong source of variability, are minor, even when individual variability is high or data coverage is poor. For tag–recapture data, some substantial biases in growth estimates can arise when individual variability exists but is not accounted for. Importantly, however, incorporating variability in just one parameter (be it L∞ or k), even if the variability truly stems from the other or both parameters, generally leads to much smaller biases than assuming no individual variability. Often the alternative models cannot be distinguished using standard model selection procedures, so caution is warranted in using model selection to draw inferences about underlying sources of growth variability.
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 | 0.014 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".