MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sex‐specific differences in cardiovascular performance of a centrarchid fish are only evident during the reproductive period

2004· article· en· W2104950097 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Steven J. Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignQueen's UniversityIllinois Department of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiologyMicropterusPaternal careBass (fish)ReproductionZoologyPhysiologyEcologyPregnancyOffspring

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Although in birds and mammals sex‐specific differences in organismal performance and physiology are well documented, comparatively little is known about the influence of sex or reproductive status on fish performance or metabolism. In this study, the resting cardiovascular performance of male and female Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides was contrasted across three seasons and different reproductive states including the spring when nesting males provide sole parental care. Doppler flow probes were used to monitor resting cardiac output ( Q ) and its two components (heart rate, f H and stroke volume, SV H ). During the spring when Largemouth Bass were engaged in reproduction (at 21 °C), parental male nesting fish had heightened resting cardiovascular rates (both Q and f H ) relative to non‐nesting males and females. In the summer at higher water temperatures (24 °C), and in the autumn at water temperatures similar to the reproductive period (21 °C), resting cardiovascular variables were similar between sexes. This study found that there are sex‐based differences in fish physiological performance. However, the sex‐specific differences were evident only during the reproductive period, and in particular for male fish actively engaged in the nesting phase of parental care, indicating a likely role of the endocrine system.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207