MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CHILL-COMA TOLERANCE, A MAJOR CLIMATIC ADAPTATION AMONG DROSOPHILA SPECIES

2001· article· en· W2012296090 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Gibert, B. Moréteau, Georges Pétavy, Dev Karan, Jean R. David

Bibliographic record

VenueEvolution · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsCégep de Baie-Comeau
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperate climateBiologyAdaptation (eye)Range (aeronautics)Drosophila (subgenus)Tropical climateEcologyDrosophila melanogasterZoologyCold climateComa (optics)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most drosophilid species can be classified either as temperate or tropical. Adults of species were submitted to a cold treatment (0 degrees C) and then brought back to ambient temperature. They generally exhibited a chill coma and the time needed to recover was measured. We found in a set of 26 temperate species that recovery was rapid (average 1.8 min, range 0.15-4.9). In contrast, a long recovery time (average 56 min, range 24-120) was observed for 48 tropical species. A few species, like Drosophila melanogaster, are cosmopolitan and can proliferate under temperate and tropical climates. In 9 of 10 such species, slight genetic differences were found: a shorter recovery in temperate than in tropical populations. Comparing physiological data to phylogeny suggests that chill-coma tolerance has been a recurrent adaptation that is selected for in cold climates but tends to disappear under a permanently warm environment. This major climatic adaptation, evidenced in drosophilids, seems to occur in other insect groups also.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations232
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvolutionSame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207