Peer Review #1 of "Scaling patterns of body plans differ among squirrel ecotypes (v0.2)"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Body size is often hypothesized to facilitate or constrain morphological diversity in the cranial, appendicular, and axial skeletons.However, how overall body shape scales with body size (i.e., body shape allometry) and whether these scaling patterns differ between ecological groups remains poorly investigated.Here, we test whether and how the relationships between body shape, body size, and limb lengths differ among species with different locomotor specializations, and describe the underlying morphological components that contribute to body shape evolution among squirrel (Sciuridae) ecotypes.We quantified the body size and shape of 87 squirrel species from osteological specimens held at museum collections.Using phylogenetic comparative methods, we first found that body shape and its underlying morphological components scale allometrically with body size, but these allometric patterns differ among squirrel ecotypes: chipmunks and gliding squirrels exhibited more elongate bodies with increasing body sizes whereas ground squirrels exhibited more robust bodies with increasing body size.Second, we found that only ground squirrels exhibit a relationship between forelimb length and body shape, where more elongate species exhibit relatively shorter forelimbs.Third, we found that the relative length of the ribs and elongation or shortening of the thoracic region contributes the most to body shape evolution across squirrels.Overall, our work contributes to the growing understanding of mammalian body shape evolution and how it is influenced by body size and locomotor ecology, in this case from robust subterranean to gracile gliding squirrels.
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 | 0.012 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.484 | 0.301 |
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".