Growth variability, dimensional scaling, and the interpretation of osteohistological growth data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteohistological data are commonly used to study the life history of extant and extinct tetrapods. While recent advances have permitted detailed reconstructions of growth patterns, physiology and other features using these data, they are most commonly used in assessments of ontogenetic stage and relative growth in extinct animals. These methods have seen widespread adoption in recent years, rapidly becoming a common component of the taxonomic description of new fossil taxa, but are often applied without close consideration of the sources of variation present or the dimensional scaling relationships that exist among different osteohistological measurements. Here, we use a combination of theoretical models and empirical data from a range of extant and extinct tetrapods to review sources of variability in common osteohistological measurements, their dimensional scaling relationships and the resulting interpretations that can be made from those data. In particular, we provide recommendations on the usage and interpretation of growth mark spacing/zonal thickness data, when these are likely to be unreliable, and under what conditions they can provide useful inferences for studies of growth and life history.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".