MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119985623 · doi:10.1242/jeb.01670

PEERING INTO CUTTLEFISH

2005· article· en· W2119985623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yfke van Bergen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuttlefishAnatomyBody cavityBiologyGeologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It's been known for some time that cuttlefish have contractile veins, but only from dissections; nobody had ever seen them contract in a live,free-swimming cuttlefish. To investigate this remarkable feature, Alison King and her colleagues at Dalhousie University and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography developed an ingenious set-up to see cuttlefish circulatory systems in action (p. 2071).King wanted to know how blood returns to the cuttlefish heart. Most of our veins are conveniently located in muscles, and their contractions squeeze blood back to our heart. But the large cuttlefish veins aren't surrounded by muscle. Instead, they sit in a body cavity enclosed by the mantle - a big,muscular body wall that ventilates the cuttlefish's gills. It's generally assumed that the large veins are compressed by increased pressure in the cavity caused by the mantle's contractions, and that this pushes blood back to the cuttlefish's heart. But is this really what happens? Radiologist Matthias Schmidt astutely suggested that King could try using ultrasound to find out.King and Schmidt began experimenting, but soon hit a snag; they found that the cuttlebone in cuttlefish backs is opaque to ultrasound. Realising that she'd have to go underneath the cuttlefish to see anything, King designed a plastic cylinder propped up with struts. To get ultrasound images of the insides of the cuttlefish happily resting in the cylinder, King pressed an ultrasound transducer against the bottom of the cylinder and hoped the creature would sit still long enough for her to get 30-second video clips. It worked; King could finally take a peek inside cuttlefish. But she had to make sense of the seething mass of cuttlefish insides. Poring over an atlas of cuttlefish body parts, she struggled to decipher her upside-down moving images. It was worth it. `For the first time, we could see blood vessels changing shape in live cuttlefish,' King says. `It was magical seeing physiology in action.'So, does increasing mantle cavity pressure compress the veins, pushing blood to the heart? If it does, the contractions of the anterior and lateral venae cavae (two of the major veins that deliver oxygen-depleted blood to the heart) should be in sync with the mantle's contractions. But King saw that the lateral venae cavae and the mantle contract at different rates. Since they are out of sync, the mantle can't be compressing the lateral venae cavae. Taking a closer look at her real-time images, King saw peristaltic waves moving along the anterior and lateral venae cavae; the veins contract on their own! So it's unlikely that pressures created by the mantle compress the veins, because then`we'd expect the veins to collapse as a unit, rather than progressively along their length,' King says. She suggests that `actively contracting veins aid the return of blood to the cuttlefish heart.'But King also noticed that the anterior and lateral venae cavae contract at different rates, which could spell disaster. The two veins are connected, so if one relaxes and expands while the other contracts, blood could flow in the wrong direction. Cuttlefish solve this potential problem in the same way we do; King discovered a new valve (which she has dubbed the Wells valve) sitting between the venae cavae, which ensures that blood always flows towards the heart.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1270.022

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207