The heart rate - breathing rate relationship in aquatic mammals: A comparative analysis with terrestrial species
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals, while resting at the water surface or ashore, breathe with a low frequency (f) by comparison to terrestrial mammals of the same body size, the difference increasing the larger the species. Among various interpretations, it was suggested that the low-f breathing is a consequence of the end-inspiratory breath-holding pattern adopted by aquatic mammals to favour buoyancy at the water surface, and evolved to be part of the genetic makeup. If this interpretation was correct it could be expected that, differently from f, the heart rate (HR, beats/min) of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals at rest would not need to differ from that of terrestrial mammals and that their HR-f ratio would be higher than in terrestrial species. Literature data for HR (beats/min) in mammals at rest were gathered for 56 terrestrial and 27 aquatic species. In aquatic mammals the allometric curve (HR=191·M-0.18; M= body mass, kg) did not differ from that of terrestrial species (HR=212·M-0.22) and their HR-f ratio (on average 32±5) was much higher than in terrestrial species (5±1) (P<0.0001). The comparison of these HR allometric curves to those for f previously published indicated that the HR-f ratio was body size-independent in terrestrial species while it increased significantly with M in aquatic species. The similarity in HR and differences in f between aquatic and terrestrial mammals agree with the possibility that the low f of aquatic and semi-aquatic mammals may have evolved for a non-respiratory function, namely the regulation of buoyancy at the water surface.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it