Postfreeze locomotion performance in wood frogs (<i>Rana sylvatica</i>) and spring peepers (<i>Pseudacris crucifer</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Freeze tolerance exists among a few species of terrestrially hibernating North American frogs such as the wood frog (Rana sylvatica) and the spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer). We investigated jump distance and swimming speed of these two frog species during postfreeze recovery because impaired performance, even if reversible, could have adverse ecological consequences for these frogs. Following a nonlethal freeze at –1.5 °C, R. sylvatica returned to the prefreeze level of both modes of locomotion sooner than P. crucifer (54 h vs. 11 d or longer). Wood frogs recovered slowly following more intense freezes: a –4.0 °C treatment group failed to reach the prefreeze level after 11 d, and a –3.0 °C treatment group took 54 h to reach 50% of the prefreeze level. As a result of their diminished locomotive performance, frogs recovering from natural freezes may be temporarily less able to exploit environmental resources and less able to escape predators active in winter. Nevertheless, given the massive biochemical and physiological disturbances accompanying tissue freezing, the recovery dynamics in these frogs seem sufficiently rapid to minimize most ecological risks and to permit early spring breeding. The faster recovery of locomotion in R. sylvatica compared with P. crucifer is consistent, however, with its greater northward distribution.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".