MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076614751 · doi:10.1139/z03-071

The gut microenvironment of helicid snails (Gastropoda: Pulmonata): in-situ profiles of pH, oxygen, and hydrogen determined by microsensors

2003· article· en· W2076614751 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryvonne Charrier, Andreas Brune

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHelix pomatiaPulmonataBiologyGastropodaOxygenDigestion (alchemy)SnailAnatomyEcologyZoologyChromatographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In-situ profiles of pH, oxygen, and hydrogen were measured in isolated guts of starved terrestrial gastropods belonging to four species, Cornu aspersum (syn. Helix aspersa), Elona quimperiana, Helix pomatia, and Helix lucorum (excepted pH), using Clark-type oxygen and hydrogen microsensors and liquid-ion-exchanger pH microelectrodes. The pH profiles in the two phyllophagous species, H. pomatia and C. aspersum, increased by 0.9 and 1.4 from the crop to the distal intestine (pH 6.4 and 7.4, respectively). In the saprophagous E. quimperiana, as in H. pomatia, the pH along the gut axis remained acidic (5.1–6.6), suggesting saprophagous habits in the latter. In all four species, no oxygen was detected in the gut lumen. Nevertheless, steep oxygen gradients around the gut epithelium indicated high oxygen-uptake rates. The estimated respiratory activity of the intestine ranged between 6.5 (E. quimperiana) and 13.1 (H. lucorum) μmol O 2 ·g fresh mass –1 ·h –1 . Hydrogen accumulated in the intestine and digestive gland of all snails tested, with the highest values in E. quimperiana and H. pomatia (58 and 78 μM, respectively). These results provide the basis for a better understanding of the microbial and biochemical processes involved in digestion.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.382
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations36
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207