MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094300271 · doi:10.1037/a0021953

Thermogenic and vocalization responses to cold in the chicken hatchling during normoxia and hypoxia.

2011· article· en· W2094300271 on OpenAlexaff
Khalid Al Awam, Florin Catana, Jacopo P. Mortola

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchlingThermoregulationThermogenesisHypoxia (environmental)Set pointStimulus (psychology)BiologyEndocrinologyHypothermiaInternal medicineOxygenChemistryAnimal sciencePhysiologyPsychologyMedicineHatchingAdipose tissue

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the vocalization and the thermogenic responses to cold during hypoxia in chicken hatchlings during the first postnatal day. Calls were quantified in number and sound characteristics (amplitude and frequency); the change in oxygen (O2) consumption, measured by an open-flow methodology, represented thermogenesis. The cold challenge consisted of a decrease in ambient temperature (Ta) from ~39 to 28 °C, in steps of 2 °C, or an acute exposure to ~28 °C, either in normoxia or hypoxia (10% O2). Hypoxia lowered thermogenesis and the critical Ta, suggesting a decrease in the set point for thermoregulation. The vocalization response to cold was rapid; did not progress with the duration or intensity of the cold stimulus; was similar in very young (<8 hr old) and older (12-24 hr) hatchlings despite their differences in thermogenic capacity; and was essentially unaffected by hypoxia. We conclude that the hatchling's vocalization in the cold follows a stereotyped pattern not related to the thermogenic regulation of body temperature. The dissociation between vocalization and thermogenesis might carry some advantage in conditions of cold and hypoxia.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehavioral NeuroscienceSame topicBat Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207