MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053007391 · doi:10.1139/z00-191

White blood cell counts in house sparrows (<i>Passer domesticus</i>) before and after moult and after testosterone treatment

2001· article· en· W2053007391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Paz Nava, José P. Veiga, Marisa Puerta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirección General de Investigación Científica y TécnicaComisión Interministerial de Ciencia y TecnologíaComunidad de Madrid
KeywordsMoultingBiologyJuvenileTestosterone (patch)PasserInternal medicineEndocrinologyWhite blood cellMudaPhysiologyZoologyImmunologyEcologySparrowMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study two experiments were run in parallel. To evaluate the possible influence of moult and age on differential white blood cell (WBC) counts, we captured juvenile and adult house sparrows (Passer domesticus) and housed them in outdoor aviaries. Blood was collected twice, before and after moult. Numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and monocytes were higher in juveniles than in adults, whereas numbers of eosinophilic cells were similar in the two age groups. Moult induced an increase in basophils and monocytes in both juveniles and adults. This indicates that moult and age impose different immunological challenges on house sparrows. To evaluate the effect of testosterone on differential WBC counts, some house sparrows in aviaries received testosterone during the moult period. Testosterone administration reduced, though not significantly, the number of all WBC types in juveniles, and therefore appeared to have an nonspecific effect. However, the number of lymphocytes increased only in adults, which suggests a specific effect on this cell type in this age group.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.857

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207