Lung and Buccal Ventilation in the Frog: Uncoupling Coupled Oscillators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The frog, with two distinct ventilatory acts, provides a useful model to investigate the prospective interaction of two oscillators in generating the respiratory rhythm. Building on evidence supporting the existence of separate oscillators generating buccal and lung ventilation, we have attempted to uncouple the two rhythms in the isolated brain stem preparation. Opioid preferentially inhibits the lung rhythm, suggesting an uncoupling of the lung from the buccal oscillator. Reduction of the superfusate chloride concentration alters both the buccal and the lung rhythms. Joint application of opioid and reduced-chloride superfusate leads to an increase in the variability of the buccal burst-to-lung burst intervals. This increase in variability suggests that chloride-mediated mechanisms are involved in coupling the buccal oscillator to the lung oscillator. Given the results from these interventions, we propose a simple schematic model of the frog respiratory rhythm generator, outlining the coupling of the lung and buccal oscillators.
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".