MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Hormones and immunoglobulin levels in king penguins during moulting and breeding fasts

2007· article· en· W1980301460 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Sophie Bourgeon, Vanessa M. Viera, Thierry Raclot, René Groscolas

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaTerres Australes et Antarctiques Françaises
KeywordsMoultingBiologyImmune systemAntibodyHormoneReproductionEndocrine systemMudaInternal medicineEndocrinologyTriiodothyronineZoologyEcologyImmunologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reproduction and moult are amongst the most costly seasonal events encountered by birds and it has been suggested that trade-offs exist between these events and immune function. The underlying physiological mechanisms of such potential trade-offs are still unclear, but they could be mediated by changes in hormone concentrations and/or fuel utilization. In the present study, our primary aim was to assess variations in immunoglobulin levels (maintenance of the humoral immune function) of free-living king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) during their moult and breeding fasts in relation to the associated endocrine and metabolic states. A second objective was to determine the effect of critical energy depletion on immune function in fasting captive penguins. Throughout moult, there was a progressive increase in plasma immunoglobulins (45%), accompanied by a 120% increase in plasma triiodothyronine and the maintenance of high thyroxin levels. Breeding fast was characterized by immunoglobulin levels ...

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207