Hotter is not (always) better: Embracing unimodal scaling of biological rates with temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rate-temperature scaling relationships have fascinated biologists for nearly two centuries and are increasingly important in our era of global climate change. These relationships are hypothesized to originate from the temperature-dependent kinetics of rate-limiting biochemical reactions of metabolism. Several prominent theories have formalized this hypothesis using the Arrhenius model, which characterizes a monotonic temperature dependence using an activation energy E. However, the ubiquitous unimodal nature of biological temperature responses presents important theoretical, methodological, and conceptual challenges that restrict the promise for insight, prediction, and progress. Here we review the development of key hypotheses and methods for the temperature-scaling of biological rates. Using simulations, we examine the constraints of monotonic models, illustrating their sensitivity to data nuances such as temperature range and noise, and their tendency to yield variable and underestimated E, with critical consequences for climate change predictions. We also evaluate the behaviour of two prominent unimodal models when applied to incomplete and noisy datasets. We conclude with recommendations for resolving these challenges in future research, and advocate for a shift to unimodal models that better characterize the full range of biological temperature responses.
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 | 0.007 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".