Comparison of methanol and isopropanol as wash solvents for determination of hair cortisol concentration in grizzly bears and polar bears
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
Methodological differences among laboratories are recognized as significant sources of variation in quantification of hair cortisol concentration (HCC). An important step in processing hair, particularly when collected from wildlife, is the choice of solvent used to remove or "wash" external hair shaft cortisol prior to quantification of HCC. The present study systematically compared methanol and isopropanol as wash solvents for their efficiency at removing external cortisol without extracting internal hair shaft cortisol in samples collected from free-ranging grizzly bears and polar bears. Cortisol concentrations in solvents and hair were determined in each of one to eight washes of hair with each solvent independently. •There were no significant decreases in internal hair shaft cortisol among all eight washes for either solvent, although methanol removed detectable hair surface cortisol after one wash in grizzly bear hair whereas hair surface cortisol was detected in all eight isopropanol washes.•There were no significant differences in polar bear HCC washed one to eight times with either solvent, but grizzly bear HCC was significantly greater in hair washed with isopropanol compared to methanol.•There were significant differences in HCC quantified using different commercial ELISA kits commonly used for HCC determinations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it