MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982127280 · doi:10.1086/430043

Redistribution of Extracellular Water and Sodium May Contribute to Saline Tolerance in Wild Ducks

2005· article· en· W1982127280 on OpenAlexaff
Darin C. Bennett, David A. Gray, P. J. Sharp, Maryanne R. Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological and Biochemical Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAythyaAnasExtracellularExtracellular fluidSalineSaline waterBiologySodiumAldosteroneEcologySalinityChemistryEndocrinologyHabitatBiochemistryWaterfowl

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The compartmentalization of body fluids was measured in three species of ducks that differ in saline tolerance. Half of the birds of each species drank freshwater, while the other half drank saline (300 mM NaCl). Among ducks that drank freshwater, total body water (TBW) was similar among all species, but Barrow's goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica), the most marine species, had larger extracellular fluid volume (ECFV) than freshwater mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) or estuarine canvasbacks (Aythya valisineria). When acclimated to saline, only goldeneyes shifted extracellular water and Na+ into the intracellular compartment. ECFV was correlated with plasma aldosterone concentration in goldeneyes, but not in canvasbacks (aldosterone was not measured in mallards). Data summarized from the literature showed that TBW does not differ among terrestrial, freshwater, or marine species, but marine species have a larger part of their TBW in the extracellular compartment. Saline induced movement of extracellular water and Na+ into the cells only in goldeneyes. ECFV and redistribution of extracellular water and Na+ into the cells may be important components in saline tolerance of marine birds.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological and Biochemical ZoologySame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207