Variation in the chemical composition of adipose tissue of three species of ursids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the water content and lipid content of adipose tissue was compared between 25 polar bears (Ursus maritimus) and 25 black bears (Ursus americanus) to determine if it was affected by species differences in the fatty-acid composition of adipose tissue. The adipose tissue of polar bears had a lower water content and a higher proportion of long-chain fatty acids than did the adipose tissue of black bears, when compared at equal lipid content. The relationship between the body water and lipid contents was also compared among 11 polar bears, 18 black bears, and 6 brown bears (Ursus arctos) to determine if this relationship could be affected by species differences in the relationship between the water and lipid contents of adipose tissue. The body-water content in marine (polar) bears was less than that in terrestrial (black and brown) bears, and the differences in body-water content between the two groups became more apparent as the body-lipid content increased. These results suggest that the fatty-acid composition of adipose tissue can affect the body-water content, especially in fat bears. These findings have implications for the use of isotope-dilution models to predict body composition in bears.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".