MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163616700 · doi:10.1139/z05-096

Does reproduction influence temperature preferences in newts?

2005· article· en· W2163616700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lumı́r Gvoždı́k

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGrantová Agentura České Republiky
KeywordsOviparityEctothermBiologyReproductionZoologyReproductive successEcologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of reproduction on body temperatures preferred in a laboratory thermal gradient has been studied mostly in ectotherms that are either viviparous or oviparous with prolonged egg retention. In this study I investigated whether reproduction influences temperature preferences in the Italian crested newt, Triturus carnifex (Laurenti, 1768), whose females do not carry embryos in utero (strict oviparity). I compared preferred temperatures and locomotor activity among reproductive females, non-reproductive females, and males in an aquatic thermal gradient (5–32.5 °C) over 24 h. Reproductive females preferred mean body temperatures 2.3–4.3 °C higher than those of non-reproductive females and males irrespective of activity level. Females regulated body temperature more precisely when reproductive than when non-reproductive as judged by the narrower range of preferred body temperatures. The study showed that the shift in temperature preferences of reproductive females occurs not only in species with advanced reproductive modes (i.e., viviparity and oviparity with egg retention), but also in a strictly oviparous mode.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207