Pulmonary and cutaneous O<sub>2</sub>gas exchange: a student laboratory exercise in the frog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gas exchange in animals is ultimately diffusion based, generally occurring across dedicated respiratory organs. In many aquatic amphibians, however, multiple modes of gas exchange exist, allowing for the partitioning of O2 uptake and CO2 excretion between respiratory organs with different efficiencies. For example, due to the physical properties of O2 being vastly different between air and water phases, the lung and skin play disproportionately important roles in O2 uptake. Many aquatic frogs are renowned for their cutaneous gas exchange capacity, where often the majority of CO2 is excreted across the skin. Furthermore, the roles of these gas exchange organs change with the animal's behavior. Under diving conditions, most of the frog's gas exchange needs must be met by the skin. In this article, we describe an interactive undergraduate laboratory that allows a class of students to share equipment while assessing pulmonary and cutaneous respiration in frogs provided with an air/water choice and under enforced dive conditions. Concepts explored in this laboratory exercise include animal energetics, diving reflex, pulmonary and cutaneous gas exchange processes, diffusion-based gas flux, and O2 debt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".