Age and growth rate variation influence the functional relationship between somatic and otolith size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Curves describing the length–otolith size relationships for juveniles and adults of six fish species with widely differing biological characteristics were fitted simultaneously to fish length and otolith size at age, assuming that deviations from those curves are correlated rather than independent. The trajectories of the somatic and otolith growth curves throughout life, which reflect changing ratios of somatic to otolith growth rates, varied markedly among species and resulted in differing trends in the relationships formed between fish and otolith size. Correlations between deviations from predicted values were always positive. Dependence of length on otolith growth rate (i.e., “growth effect”) and “correlated errors in variables” introduce bias into parameter estimates obtained from regressions describing the allometric relationships between fish lengths and otolith sizes. The approach taken in this study to describe somatic and otolith growth accounted for both of these effects and that of age to produce more reliable determinations of the length–otolith size relationships used for back-calculation and assumed when drawing inferences from sclerochronological 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".