Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1941, August Krogh published a monograph entitled The Comparative Physiology of Respiratory Mechanisms (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1941). Since that time comparative studies have continued to contribute significantly to our understanding of the fundamentals of respiratory physiology and the adaptive trends in these processes that support a broad range of metabolic performance under demanding environmental conditions. This review specifically focuses on recent advances in our understanding of adaptive trends in respiratory control. Respiratory rhythm generators most likely arose from, and must remain integrated with, rhythm generators for chewing, suckling, and swallowing. Within the central nervous system there are multiple "segmental" rhythm generators, and through evolution there is a caudal shift in the predominant respiratory rhythm-generating site. All sites, however, may still be capable of producing or modulating respiratory rhythm under appropriate conditions. Expression of the respiratory rhythm is conditional on (tonic) input. Once the rhythm is expressed, it is often episodic as the basic medullary rhythm is turned on/off subject to a hierarchy of controls. Breathing patterns reflect differences in pulmonary mechanics resulting from differences in body wall and lung architecture and are modulated in different species by various combinations of upper and lower airway mechanoreceptors and arterial chemoreceptors to protect airways, reduce dead space ventilation, enhance gas exchange efficiency, and reduce the cost of breathing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".