MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Respiratory cooling enhances infrared sensing in the South American rattlesnake, <i>Crotalus durissus</i>

2009· article· en· W171825912 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn J. Tattersall, Viviana Cadena, Denis V. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRespiratory systemHumidityPredationBiologyInfraredZoologyMedicineAnatomyMaterials scienceEcologyMeteorologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snakes possess a profound degree of respiratory evaporation, which can impart significant cooling to the face and head. As pit vipers, rattlesnakes also utilize their forward facing facial pit organs for sensing thermal fluctuations associated with their prey. The greater the difference in temperature between the prey and the pit organ, the greater the thermal flux; cooler pit organs may provide greater infrared detection. We examined the potential for respiratory cooling to enhance the rattlesnake's ability to sense their endothermic prey by exposing two group of snakes to different humidities to manipulate the degree of respiratory cooling, while simultaneously assessing their capacity to track and find murine prey. The latency for snakes to find and eat their prey was significantly longer at high than at low humidity, suggesting cooling increases thermal detection. These differences were accompanied by significant respiratory and facial cooling at low humidity compared to high humidity. Upon initial detection of mice, snakes exhibit a dramatic, slow, respiratory cooling associated, further suggesting that respiratory cooling plays a vital role in thermal detection.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207