Reassessment of the cardio-respiratory stress response, using the king penguin as a model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in to short-term cardio-respiratory changes in animals in reaction to a psychological stressor typically describes increases in rate of oxygen consumption (V̇(O2)) and heart rate. Consequently, the broad consensus is that they represent a fundamental stressor response generalizable across adult species. However, movement levels can also change in the presence of a stressor, yet studies have not accounted for this possible confound on heart rate. Thus the direct effects of psychological stressors on the cardio-respiratory system are not resolved. We used an innovative experimental design employing accelerometers attached to king penguins (Aptenodytes patagonicus) to measure and thus account for movement levels in a sedentary yet free-to-move animal model during a repeated measures stress experiment. As with previous studies on other species, incubating king penguins (N = 6) exhibited significant increases in both V̇(O2) and heart rate when exposed to the stressor. However, movement levels, while still low, also increased in response to the stressor. Once this was accounted for by comparing periods of time during the control and stress conditions when movement levels were similar as recorded by the accelerometers, only V̇(O2) significantly increased; there was no change in heart rate. These findings offer evidence that changing movement levels have an important effect on the measured stress response and that the cardio-respiratory response per se to a psychological stressor (i.e. the response as a result of physiological changes directly attributable to the stressor) is an increase in V̇(O2) without an increase in heart rate.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".