Diving experience and the aerobic dive capacity of muskrats: does training produce a better diver?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested the hypothesis that the body oxygen stores, aerobic dive limit (ADL) and dive performance of muskrats can be enhanced by dive-conditioning in a laboratory setting. We compared several key variables in 12 muskrats trained to swim a 16 m underwater course to a feeding station ('divers') with those of 12 animals precluded from diving but required to travel identical distances in water to feed ('surface swimmers'). Acclimated muskrats assigned to each group were trained concurrently over a 9-11 week period. We observed significant gains in the haematocrit (P=0.0005) and blood haemoglobin concentration (P=0.015) of 'divers', but not 'surface swimmers'. The post-training blood O(2) store calculated for 'divers' (22.9 ml O(2) kg(-1)) was nearly 26% higher than that (18.2 ml O(2) kg(-1)) derived for 'surface swimmers' (P=0.03). Dive-conditioning had no apparent effect on lung volume, whole blood and plasma volumes, nor on the glycogen level and buffering capacity of skeletal muscles. Cardiac and skeletal muscle myoglobin levels were also similar in both test groups following training. The mean total body oxygen store of 'divers' (37.8ml O(2) STPD kg(-1)) was 13.5% higher (P=0.037) than for 'surface swimmers' (33.3 ml O(2) STPD kg(-1)), an increase attributed entirely to the gain in blood O(2) storage capacity of the former group. However, owing to a slightly higher estimate of diving metabolic rate in dive-conditioned animals, the calculated ADL for this group (61.3 s) was indistinguishable from that of 'surface swimmers' (61.8 s). Few differences were observed in the post-training dive behaviour of 'surface swimmers' and 'divers', a finding consistent with the strong similarity in their calculated aerobic dive capacities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".