Bergmann's rule encompasses mechanism: a reply to Olalla‐Tárraga (2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The many definitions of Bergmann's rule have resulted in confusion and debate over how and in what organisms to test the original rule. Watt et al. published a paper in 2010, based directly on Bergmann's original paper, in the hopes of clarifying the rule and presenting direct translations to resolve uncertainties. Recently, Olalla‐Tárraga has criticized our publication, stating that we assumed the rule was a causal law, which has narrowed our epistemological scope of the rule. We argue we did not assume the rule was a law and suggest that Olalla‐Tárraga has only focused on the observed pattern and has ignored the proposed mechanism, which is inherent in the definition. We also discuss the proposed mechanism and describe why it cannot apply to ectotherms. Despite this, we encourage a thorough investigation of the mechanisms responsible for maintaining Bergmann's pattern in ectotherms and support Olalla‐Tárraga's quest for a unifying mechanism to explain body size gradients in endotherms and ectotherms.
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 | 0.017 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".