MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047040964 · doi:10.1086/524147

Effects of Season, Temperature, and Body Mass on the Standard Metabolic Rate of Tegu Lizards (<i>Tupinambis merianae</i>)

2008· article· en· W2047040964 on OpenAlexafffund
Luı́s Felipe Toledo, Simone P. Brito, William K. Milsom, Augusto S. Abe, Denis V. Andrade

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological and Biochemical Zoology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMetabolic rateBiologyBasal metabolic rateAnimal scienceEctothermBody weightThermoregulationEnergeticsEcologyZoologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study examined how the standard metabolic rate of tegu lizards, a species that undergoes large ontogenetic changes in body weight with associated changes in life-history traits, is affected by changes in body mass, body temperature, season, and life-history traits. We measured rates of oxygen consumption (Vo(2)) in 90 individuals ranging in body mass from 10.4 g to 3.75 kg at three experimental temperatures (17 degrees , 25 degrees , and 30 degrees C) over the four seasons. We found that standard metabolic rate scaled to the power of 0.84 of body mass at all experimental temperatures in all seasons and that thermal sensitivity of metabolism was relatively low (Q(10) approximately 2.0-2.5) over the range from 17 degrees to 30 degrees C regardless of body size or season. Metabolic rates did vary seasonally, being higher in spring and summer than in autumn and winter at the same temperatures, and this was true regardless of animal size. Finally, in this study, the changes in life-history traits that occurred ontogenetically were not accompanied by significant changes in metabolic 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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

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 studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.197 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological and Biochemical ZoologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207