MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2138443548 · doi:10.1139/z01-206

Effect of saline drinking water on the size and water content of the gut and other organs of male and female mallards

2002· article· en· W2138443548 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maryanne R. Hughes, D. C. Bennett, Timothy Sullivan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySalineAnasSalt glandAcclimatizationEndocrinologyAnimal scienceJejunumInternal medicineSaline waterAnatomyPhysiologySalinityZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ducks absorb imbibed Na+and water in the anterior gut and reabsorb Na+and water from urine refluxed into the hind gut. In Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) this process is sexually disparate: males reflux and reabsorb more water, mainly in the ceca. We examined the effect of saline acclimation on the size of Mallard organs, especially the gut and other osmoregulatory organs (kidneys, salt glands) in both sexes. We tested and accept two hypotheses: (1) saline increases the mass of the Mallard hind gut and other osmoregulatory organs and (2) saline has a greater effect on the organs of males. Drinking saline did not affect the mass of body, kidney, heart, or liver, but increased the mass of the salt glands, ileum, and ceca. Increases in organ mass were greater in males than in females. Saline acclimation increased the length of the jejunum only in males and decreased the length of the esophagus and the length and mass of the proventriculus only in females. Our data suggest that the upper and lower gut segments may play somewhat different roles in ion and water transport in the two sexes.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→