MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2572777905 · doi:10.1089/ast.2015.1439

G-Equivalent Acceleration Tolerance in the Eutardigrade Species <i>Hypsibius dujardini</i>

2017· article· es· W2572777905 on OpenAlexaff
Tarushika Vasanthan, Lorea Alejaldre, Jessica Hider, Shreya Patel, Nabiha Husain, Bavithra Umapathisivam, Jonathon Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueAstrobiology · 2017
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicTardigrade Biology and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHypergravityTardigradeCryptobiosisRegolithBiologyDesiccationAstrobiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tardigrades are microscopic organisms renowned for their ability to survive extreme environmental conditions. Tardigrade extreme-tolerance research has centered on the ability to withstand desiccation, low and high temperatures, and high hydrostatic pressure and radiation levels. Tardigrade tolerance to hypergravity, however, has yet to be described. We used the eutardigrade species Hypsibius dujardini to investigate short-term tolerance to g-equivalent accelerations (i.e., mimicking g-forces). Data obtained from specimens centrifuged between 3421g and 16,060g for 1 min inclusively reveal tolerance in an acceleration-dependent relation, with lower survivorship and egg production at higher accelerations. This is the first study to demonstrate tardigrade potential for tolerance to hypergravity and describe expected effects on tardigrade survival and reproduction. These findings will prove to be useful in lithopanspermia research (i.e., viable spread in meteoritic rocks). Key Words: Astrobiology-Extreme tolerance-Hypergravity-Tardigrade. Astrobiology 17, 55-60.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstrobiologySame topicTardigrade Biology and EcologyFrench-language works237,207