Body mass, age, and reproductive influences on liver mass of white-tailed deer (<i>Odocoileus virginianus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research into the liver has mainly examined liver function and liver response to energy restriction. There have been few investigations into how liver mass is coupled to body mass, body condition, age, and reproductive events like lactation. Therefore, we examined the scaling relationship between body mass and liver mass and the influences of age, sex, body condition (back fat), and lactation on liver mass to gain insight into liver-mass variation in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus (Zimmermann, 1780)). Deer from two sites in Texas (89 males, 70 females) were sampled; one site was sampled before the mating season (premating) and the other site was sampled during the mating season. There was an allometric relationship between body mass and liver mass (scalars 0.59–0.80) at both sites. Also, sex and age were predictors of liver mass at one site, whereas lactation was influential at the other location. Controlling for body mass, males had heavier livers than females during the mating but not the premating season and age was positively related to liver mass. Our findings indicate that sex and lactation status were coupled to liver masses, but the effect of these two factors differed between premating and mating seasons. It appears that animals in situations where metabolic demands might be higher than current nutrient intake, such as mature males during the rut or lactating females, have heavier liver masses when body mass is controlled.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".