Using scale-derived estimates of body size in analyses of Atlantic salmon life-history variation: a cautionary note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measurements of individual body length at different life stages are critical in understanding fish ecology and evolution. Such data can be obtained via back-calculation from measurements of fish scales or by using the size of the scale as a direct proxy for body length. Using data from Atlantic salmon, we test key assumptions associated with each approach and their implications for investigating how variation in growth earlier in life is associated with age at maturity. The scaling of scale size approximated isometry and was similar among individuals who matured at different ages—validating a key assumption of back-calculation. However, we observed that individuals genetically predisposed to delay maturation have smaller scales for their body size—challenging a key assumption of the “direct scale-size” approach. Depending on the method of body length estimation, the relationship between body length growth earlier in life and age at maturity was observed to differ. Thus, when using scale material to study the relationship between growth and maturation in salmon, we recommend back-calculation and an assumed allometric scaling coefficient.
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 | 0.138 | 0.328 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".