Phylogenetics to help predict active metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper shows how to build predictive models involving phylogenetic information to estimate metabolic traits such as active metabolic costs. Fish swimming cost is often estimated from body mass and swimming speed. The parameters of the relationships between these variables and swimming cost vary among species because each species has its own morphology and physiology. It is now widely recognized that traits are phylogenetically structured. Using new statistical approaches, it is possible to both correct swimming cost models for statistical phylogenetic non‐independence and use the inherent phylogenetic signal to improve models. With these models one can extend, to a larger set of species, empirical knowledge about traits that are difficult to obtain; swimming cost is one such trait. Swimming cost accounts for a large and variable component of a fish energy budget, yet models have only been developed from observations performed on a few species, thereby constraining the scope of bioenergetic models. Here, we propose a method where body mass and swimming speed are used together with phylogeny to predict swimming cost. The resulting model explained a large proportion of the variation (90%) in the forced swimming cost of 16 fish species submitted to forced swimming experiments. We also compared phylogenetically‐explicit predictions for forced swimming experiments with experimental results of routine swimming for five species, among which one was not used to build the model. Results confirmed that forced swimming underestimates the cost of unsteady swimming. The phylogenetic modeling could be used to estimate other variables of interest in bioenergetic studies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".