Consequences of model specification for the determination of gut evacuation rates: redefining the linear model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of gut contents and evacuation rate is an important tool to determine in situ feeding rates of many organisms. Traditionally used equations of gut evacuation models, however, have made a systematic comparison among models difficult. We changed the notation of the linear gut evacuation model to provide an algorithm compatible with the commonly used exponential model. Using examples from the literature, we demonstrate that prolonged retention of food after a true linear pattern of gut evacuation can be mistaken for an exponential pattern. In many of these examples, use of an exponential gut evacuation model causes overestimation of food consumption by approximately twofold. In situations where the entire gastrointestinal tract is examined instead of the stomach only, the time course of the gut content is best described by a plug-flow reactor for which the "input = output" rule applies. In contrast, the assumption of a "proportional release" must be met rigorously for the exponential model to be valid, which requires more complex feedback mechanisms than the simple plug-flow reactor. The new algorithm for the linear model is also consistent with the empirical observation that the gut evacuation rate is proportional to the initial gut content.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".