MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1987196911 · doi:10.1139/z05-083

Carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur diet–tissue discrimination in mouse tissues

2005· article· en· W1987196911 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lynne S. Arneson, Stephen E. MacAvoy

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySulfurCarbon fibersFractionationNitrogenMuscle tissueIsotopes of carbonAnimal scienceBiochemistryEnvironmental chemistryEcologyTotal organic carbonEndocrinologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable-isotope ratios are increasingly being used to examine ecological questions pertaining to dietary choices, physiological status, and animal migration. It has been shown that animal tissues reflect the isotopic signature present in food, altered by a small reproducible fractionation value. The average diet–tissue discrimination for δ 13 C and δ 15 N is approximately 1‰ and 3‰, respectively, although the degree of diet–tissue discrimination may be affected by a range of factors and vary between organisms and tissue types. Although the average δ 34 S is approximately zero, the sulfur diet–tissue discrimination values have only been determined for a few organisms. It is necessary to determine accurate diet–tissue discrimination values between tissue and dietary components to have confidence in any food-web study or determination of diet quality. In this paper, we determine carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur diet–tissue discrimination values for whole blood, liver, skeletal muscle, heart, brain, and fat (carbon only) from adult mice (Mus musculus L., 1758) equilibrated on three diets with unique isotopic signatures for carbohydrate carbon and for protein carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur. These data will aid researchers in choosing tissues to be used to examine food-web changes over time.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations82
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207