A critical review of the use and performance of different function types for modeling temperature-dependent development of arthropod larvae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Temperature-dependent development influences production rates of arthropods, including crustaceans important to fisheries and agricultural pests. Numerous candidate equation types (development functions) exist to describe the effect of temperature on development time, yet most studies use only a single type of equation and there is no consensus as to which, if any model predicts development rates better than the others, nor what the consequences of selecting a potentially incorrect model equation are on predicted development times. In this study, a literature search was performed of studies fitting development functions to development of arthropod larvae (99 species). The published data of most (79) of these species were then fit with 33 commonly-used development functions. Overall performance of each function type and consequences of using a function other than the best one to model data were assessed. Performance was also related to taxonomy and the range of temperatures examined. The majority (91.1 %) of studies were found to not use the best function out of those tested. Using the incorrect model lead to significantly less accurate (e.g., mean difference ± SE 85.9 ± 27.4 %, range: −1.7 to 1725.5 %) predictions of development times than the best function. Overall, more complex functions performed poorly relative to simpler ones. However, performance of some complex functions improved when wide temperature ranges were tested, which tended to be confined to studies of insects or arachnids compared with those of crustaceans. Results indicate the biological significance of choosing the best-fitting model to describe temperature-dependent development time data. Highlights Temperature-dependent development functions of arthropod larvae were reviewed 79 published datasets were re-tested and fit with 33 different function types 91.1 % of published studies did not fit their data with the best function of those tested Performance differed among functions and was related to taxon and temperature range tested Function type impacted predicted development times, so using the best function matters
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".