Which Body Size Metrics Should Be Used for Assessing Temperature Impacts on Fish Growth and Size?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An extensive literature and debate exist on how and why temperature impacts animal, and especially ectotherm, body sizes. However, there remain considerable discrepancies and misunderstandings in the key definitions and concepts of body size used to describe observed temperature impacts across studies. For fish and other animals that continue growing throughout life, body size can be defined as size-at-maturity, adult size, asymptotic size, maximum observed size, population-averaged length or mass, or average size-at-(arbitrary)-age. These concepts of size are not equivalent, and temperature is likely to affect each in different ways. Some disagreement about temperature impacts on fish body sizes might relate to the different body size and growth metrics used, especially when combined with different biological scales (individual, population, or community) and empirical contexts (laboratory, field). Here, we review six common confusions associated with the measurement of "size" in fish and other water-breathing ectotherms and recommend consistent and accurate use of terms and methodology to ensure that studies of global warming impacts on fish sizes can be compared and interpreted unequivocally.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".