MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4407112942 · doi:10.1242/jeb.243514

Friends warn friends about feasts and famines

2022· article· en· W4407112942 sur OpenAlexaff
Giulia S. Rossi

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth and Conflict Studies
Établissements canadiensThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Many years ago, Eleanor Roosevelt famously quipped, ‘Learn from the mistakes of others. You can't live long enough to make them all yourself’. Little did Eleanor know that her words would not only apply to human behaviour but also to the physiology of a highly social songbird. The red crossbill (Loxia curvirostra) is a nomadic species whose flocks travel far and wide in search of foraging grounds abundant with conifer seeds. As seed production can be unpredictable from year to year, red crossbills are often challenged by periods of food deprivation that can have devastating impacts on their body condition. In her recent study, Jamie Cornelius from Ohio State University, USA, shows that red crossbills can learn from the mistakes of their food-deprived friends, inducing coping mechanisms that prepare them for challenging food conditions ahead.Animals can gather information about the environment through their own experiences, but may also glean information by observing others. Thus, Cornelius questioned whether red crossbills that observe the deterioration of their underfed friends would make behavioural and physiological adjustments to prevent themselves from meeting that same fate. She tested this idea by housing pairs of birds in side-by-side cages. One bird in each pair was selected to be a well-fed onlooker, keeping an eye on its adjacent neighbour for 3 days, while the neighbour was placed on a strict diet and only permitted to eat during two short feeding windows per day. Following the 3 day experience, Cornelius then restricted the diet of the well-fed onlooker to determine whether observing their famished neighbour's predicament had changed how they responded to food scarcity.Cornelius discovered that when the onlooker birds were placed on meagre rations, they lost less weight. They ate more during the brief windows when food was available, as though their neighbour had warned them to ‘eat what you can, when you can’. In addition to this behavioural change, Cornelius also found physiological changes. Warned of a dwindling food supply, the onlooker birds kept their flight muscles in tip-top shape, which is important when food conditions are so grave that birds must fly long distances in search of better dining opportunities. The onlooker birds also had larger intestines, which Cornelius thinks improves how efficiently food is digested and ultimately helps to reduce their weight loss during periods of famine.As with any good study, Cornelius's findings left her with many more questions. She learned that knowledge gained by observing others in their surroundings can alter bird behaviour and physiology, but how these changes are mediated remains a mystery. Luckily, she has a hunch. Her previous work demonstrated that red crossbills that are forewarned of poor environmental food conditions by their friends mount a large stress response when food is scarce. The stress response involves elevating levels of the stress hormone corticosterone, which is thought to enhance survival in birds during periods of environmental stress by increasing foraging behaviour. Thus, corticosterone may act as a messenger between the brain and the rest of the body, helping to mediate between behaviour and physiology.For red crossbills, it seems that Eleanor Roosevelt's edict to ‘learn from the mistakes of others’ could be a matter of life and death. If birds don't learn from the misfortunes of others, they may not survive long enough to make the same mistakes themselves. Fortunately, the hardships endured by some in the flock could caution others to avoid meeting the same fate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,111

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0090,003
Communication savante0,0030,005
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0040,006
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0330,010

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,063
Tête enseignante GPT0,454
Écart entre enseignants0,391 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Experimental BiologyMême sujetHealth and Conflict StudiesTravaux en français237 207