MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070916437 · doi:10.1139/z03-037

Seasonal changes in the diving performance of the bimodally respiring freshwater turtle<i>Rheodytes leukops</i>in a natural setting

2003· article· en· W2070916437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Matthew A. Gordos, Craig E. Franklin, Colin J. Limpus

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilUniversity of Queensland
KeywordsBiologyTurtle (robot)OverwinteringFacultativeForagingSeasonalityEcologyRespirationCarapaceZoologyCrustaceanBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate how seasonally fluctuating environmental conditions influence the diving performance of the highly aquatic, bimodally respiring turtle Rheodytes leukops in a natural setting. Over four consecutive seasons (Austral autumn 2000 to summer 2001), the diving behaviour of adult turtles was recorded via pressure-sensitive time–depth recorders within Marlborough Creek, central Queensland, Australia. Short surfacing intervals recorded for R. leukops in winter suggest that the species utilizes aquatic respiration as an overwintering strategy to prevent the development of a metabolic acidosis during the long inactive dives observed during the season. As water temperature increases and aquatic P O 2 decreases, R. leukops switches from facultative to obligate air-breathing, presumably because of the increased metabolic cost associated with aquatic respiration under summer conditions. Increases in mean surfacing time from winter to spring and summer are attributed to seasonal changes in behaviour possibly associated with foraging rather than to the physiological state of the turtle, given that no difference in median surfacing time among seasons was observed.

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)0.001
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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207