Control of breathing and adaptation to high altitude in the bar-headed goose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bar-headed goose flies over the Himalayan mountains on its migratory route between South and Central Asia, reaching altitudes of up to 9,000 m. We compared control of breathing in this species with that of low-altitude waterfowl by exposing birds to step decreases in inspired O(2) under both poikilocapnic and isocapnic conditions. Bar-headed geese breathed substantially more than both greylag geese and pekin ducks during severe environmental (poikilocapnic) hypoxia (5% inspired O(2)). This was entirely due to an enhanced tidal volume response to hypoxia, which would have further improved parabronchial (effective) ventilation. Consequently, O(2) loading into the blood and arterial Po(2) were substantially improved. Because air convection requirements were similar between species at 5% inspired O(2), it was the enhanced tidal volume response (not total ventilation per se) that improved O(2) loading in bar-headed geese. Other observations suggest that bar-headed geese depress metabolism less than low-altitude birds during hypoxia and also may be capable of generating higher inspiratory airflows. There were no differences between species in ventilatory sensitivities to isocapnic hypoxia, the hypoxia-induced changes in blood CO(2) tensions or pH, or hypercapnic ventilatory sensitivities. Overall, our results suggest that evolutionary changes in the respiratory control system of bar-headed geese enhance O(2) loading into the blood and may contribute to this species' exceptional ability to fly high.
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".