MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112737281 · doi:10.1242/jeb.204.5.923

Control of Cardiovascular Function and its Evolution in Crustacea

2001· review· en· W2112737281 on OpenAlexaff
Brian R. McMahon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHemolymphArthropodCardiac outputBiologyCirculatory systemContraction (grammar)CrustaceanAnatomyCentral nervous systemNeuroscienceCardiologyInternal medicineEcologyMedicineEndocrinologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Work in the last decade has shown that crustacean open circulatory systems are highly efficient and controlled in a complex manner. Control occurs at several levels. Myocardial contraction is initiated in the cardiac ganglion but constantly modulated by the central nervous system, both directly via the cardioregulatory nerves and indirectly via the neurohormonal system. Heart rate and stroke volume can be controlled independently and measurements of both are needed to assess cardiac output accurately. Haemolymph outflow from many arthropod hearts is via a complex multiarterial distribution system, and the regional distribution of cardiac output is tightly controlled via cardioarterial valves at the base of each artery. These valves contain innervated muscle, and differential contraction serves to regulate the efflux of oxygenated haemolymph into a particular system. The major influence on both the evolution and control of arthropod open blood vascular systems is efficiency of oxygen uptake and delivery. This influence is illustrated by reference to a variety of crustacean and other arthropod types.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207