Allometric Growth and Scaling of Body Form of the Spadenose Shark (<i>Scoliodon laticaudus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The versatility of the shark body form is suggested to be one of the key factors underlying their evolutionary success and persistence. Nevertheless, sharks exhibit a huge diversity of body forms and morphological adaptations. More subtly, it is increasingly evident that in many species, morphology varies through ontogeny. Multiple competing hypotheses exist explaining both the function of specific morphological structures and the interspecific distribution of these ontogenetic morphological shifts. However, existing studies are restricted to a small number of mostly large‐bodied species. In this study, we report allometric scaling relationships from functionally important morphological structures in the spadenose shark (Scoliodon laticaudus). We find that a mosaic of isometric and allometric growth underlies the scaling trends in this species and that cases of allometry are consistent with an ontogenetic shift in diet. Moreover, our results refute suggestions that small‐bodied sharks grow isometrically. Given the small number of existing studies of ontogenetic morphometry in sharks and the life‐history/ecological characteristics of S. laticaudus, this study is a valuable contribution to our understanding of the adaptive value of ontogenetic morphological shifts in elasmobranchs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".