Temperature Preference During Forelimb Regeneration in the Red‐Spotted Newt <i><scp>N</scp>otophthalmus Viridescens</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Red-spotted newts (Notophthalmus viridescens) are model organisms for regenerative research. These animals can regenerate limbs, tails, jaws, spinal cords, as well as the lens of the eye. Newts are small ectotherms that are aquatic as adults; as ectotherms, they naturally conform to the temperature of their surroundings. Environmental temperatures, however, can increase or decrease the red-spotted newt's metabolic processes, including their rate of tissue regeneration; whether an optimal temperature for this rate of regeneration exists is unknown. However, newts do exhibit behavioral preferences for certain temperatures, and these thermal preferences can change with season or with acclimation. Given this flexibility in behavioral thermoregulation, we hypothesized that the process of tissue regeneration could also affect thermal preference, given the metabolic costs or altered temperature sensitivities of tissue regrowth. It was predicted that regenerating newts would select an environmental temperature that maximized the rate of regeneration, however, this prediction was not fully supported. Thermal preference trials revealed that newts consistently selected temperatures between 24 and 25°C throughout regeneration. This temperature selection was warmer than that of uninjured conspecifics, but was lower than temperatures that would have further augmented the rate of regeneration. Interestingly, regenerating newts maintained a more stable temperature preference than sham newts, suggesting that accuracy in thermoregulation may be more important to regenerating individuals, than to noninjured individuals.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".