MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390154650 · doi:10.1101/2023.12.21.572684

Growing out of the fins: implications of isometric and allometric scaling of morphology relative to increasing mass in blue sharks ( <i>Prionace glauca</i> )

2023· preprint· en· W4390154650 on OpenAlexafffund
Scott G. Seamone, Phillip C. Sternes, Theresa M. McCaffrey, Natalie K. Tsao, Douglas A. Syme

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIchthyology and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaKillam Trusts
KeywordsAllometryIsometric exerciseDorsal finBiologyScalingMorphology (biology)Fish finAspect ratio (aeronautics)AnatomyFinDorsumEcologyZoologyGeometryMathematicsFisheryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Disproportional changes (i.e. allometry) in shark morphology have been attributed to shifts in function associated with niche shifts in life history, such as in habitat and diet. Photographs of blue sharks ( Prionace glauca, 26-145 kg) were used to analyze changes in parameters of body and fin morphology with increasing mass that are fundamental to swimming and feeding. We hypothesized that blue sharks would demonstrate proportional changes (i.e. isometry) in morphology with increasing mass because they do not undergo profound changes in prey and habitat type, but as a result, we predicted that blue sharks would grow into bodies with greater turning inertias and smaller frontal and surface areas, in addition to smaller spans and areas of the fins relative to mass. Many aspects of morphology increased with isometry. However, blue sharks demonstrated negative allometry in body density, whereas surface area, volume and roll inertia of the body, area, span and aspect ratio of both dorsal fins, span and aspect ratio of the ventral caudal fin, and span, length and area of the mouth increased with positive allometry. The dataset was divided in half based on mass to form two groups: smaller and larger sharks. Besides area of both dorsal fins, relative to mass, larger sharks had bodies with significantly greater turning inertia and smaller frontal and surface areas, in addition to fins with smaller spans and areas, compared to smaller sharks. Hence, isometric scaling does not necessarily imply functional similarity, and allometric scaling may sometimes be critical in maintaining, rather than shifting, function relative to mass. Both allometric and isometric changes in blue sharks are predicted to promote reduced costs of transport in migration, but conversely, decreased unsteady performance, such as in escape responses. These changes are likely beneficial for larger sharks that probably experience reductions in predation pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicIchthyology and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207