Occurrence and predictive utility of isochronal, equiproportional, and other types of development among arthropods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT In isochronal (ICD) and equiproportional development (EPD), the proportion of total immature (egg, larval, and/or juvenile) development spent in each stage (developmental proportion) does not vary among stages or temperatures, respectively. ICD and EPD have mainly been reported in copepods, and whether they occur in other arthropods is not known. If they did, then rearing studies could be simplified because the durations of later developmental stages could be predicted based on those of earlier ones. The goal of this study was to test whether different taxa have ICD, EPD, or an alternative development type in which stage-specific proportions depend on temperature, termed ‘variable proportional’ development (VPD), and also how well each development type allowed later-stage durations to be predicted from earlier ones. Data for 71 arthropods (arachnids, copepod and decapod crustaceans, and insects) were tested, and most (85.9 %) species were concluded to have VPD, meaning that ICD and EPD do not occur generally. However, EPD predicted later-stage durations comparably well to VPD (within 19-23 %), and thus may still be useful. Interestingly, some species showed a ‘mixed’ form of development, where some stages’ developmental proportions varied with temperature while those of others did not, which should be further investigated. Highlights Whether arthropod development is generally isochronal or equiproportional was tested Developmental proportions of most species’ stages varied with temperature Many species had ‘mixed’ development between variable and equiproportional types The general occurrence of isochronal and equiproportional development was rejected Equiproportional development did make reasonable predictions of stage durations
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".