MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154021909 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v7n2p1

Physiological and Ethological Effects of Fluoxetine, A Study Using Ants as Biological Models

2015· article· en· W2154021909 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marie‐Claire Cammaerts, David Cammaerts

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicOlfactory and Sensory Function Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFluoxetineBiologyComputational biologyGeneticsSerotonin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using ants as biological models, we showed that fluoxetine (the active substance of the most consumed antidepressants) largely affects the individual’s physiology and behavior. It increases sinuosity of movement, decreases precision of reaction and response to pheromones, decreases food consumption and brood caring, and induces aggressiveness towards nestmates while decreasing that towards aliens. Under fluoxetine consumption, ants lost their olfaction and their learning ability, having also lower cognitive ability. There is no habituation to, and no dependence on, fluoxetine consumption, which effects vanish in two or two and a half days. Attention should be paid whenever that drug is used, not only for the humans but also for all the organisms living on field and depending on natural water. A future work will examine antidepressants free of fluoxetine, hoping that they could advantageously replace those containing that harmful substance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.535
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.440
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.037 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicOlfactory and Sensory Function StudiesFrench-language works237,207