Modeling allometric variation: lessons from the metabolic allometry of black carp (<i>Mylopharyngodon piceus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I used linear and nonlinear regression to re-examine published data on the scaling of metabolic rate vs. body mass in an ontogenetic series of black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus (Richardson, 1846)). My objective was to expose shortcomings of the conventional procedure for fitting statistical models to bivariate observations (i.e., the procedure that is widely attributed to J.S. Huxley) and simultaneously to outline a more general and utilitarian protocol for analyzing bivariate data in studies of allometry. Authors of the original study on carp reported exponents of 0.83 and 0.78 for two-parameter power functions fitted to observations for resting metabolism and maximum metabolism, respectively. However, metabolic scaling in these fishes actually is described best by straight lines having positive intercepts with the Y axis. The allometric exponent is 1 for a straight line, so interpretations from the current analyses differ substantially from those reached in the original investigation. Contemporary theories for the evolution of optimal body size (e.g., the Metabolic Theory of Ecology) are based on patterns of metabolic allometry that have been estimated by the conventional analytical method. Thus, the current investigation raises questions about generally accepted patterns of metabolic allometry and theoretical models based upon them.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".