Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24324175›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2013

Evidence for soft bounds in Ubuntu package sizes and mammalian body masses.

Marco Gherardi, Salvatore Mandrà, Bruno Bassetti, Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marco GherardiDipartimento di Fisica, Università degli Studi di Milano, I-20133 Milano, Italy.
Salvatore Mandrà
Bruno Bassetti
Marco Cosentino Lagomarsino

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The development of a complex system depends on the self-coordinated action of a large number of agents, often determining unexpected global behavior. The case of software evolution has great practical importance: knowledge of what is to be considered atypical can guide developers in recognizing and reacting to abnormal behavior. Although the initial framework of a theory of software exists, the current theoretical achievements do not fully capture existing quantitative data or predict future trends. Here we show that two elementary laws describe the evolution of package sizes in a Linux-based operating system: first, relative changes in size follow a random walk with non-Gaussian jumps; second, each size change is bounded by a limit that is dependent on the starting size, an intriguing behavior that we call "soft bound." Our approach is based on data analysis and on a simple theoretical model, which is able to reproduce empirical details without relying on any adjustable parameter and generates definite predictions. The same analysis allows us to formulate and support the hypothesis that a similar mechanism is shaping the distribution of mammalian body sizes, via size-dependent constraints during cladogenesis. Whereas generally accepted approaches struggle to reproduce the large-mass shoulder displayed by the distribution of extant mammalian species, this is a natural consequence of the softly bounded nature of the process. Additionally, the hypothesis that this model is valid has the relevant implication that, contrary to a common assumption, mammalian masses are still evolving, albeit very slowly.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionModels, TheoreticalAnimalsBody SizeComputer SimulationMammalsSoftwareStochastic Processesbounded diffusioncladogenetic diffusionmacroevolutionary patternsmultiplicative processes

Identifiers

PMID24324175
PMCPMC3876239

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.