Respiratory mechanics of eleven avian species resident at high and low altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The metabolic cost of breathing at rest has never been successfully measured in birds, but has been hypothesized to be higher than in mammals of a similar size because of the rocking motion of the avian sternum being encumbered by the pectoral flight muscles. To measure the cost and work of breathing, and to investigate whether species resident at high altitude exhibit morphological or mechanical changes that alter the work of breathing, we studied 11 species of waterfowl: five from high altitudes (>3000 m) in Perú, and six from low altitudes in Oregon, USA. Birds were anesthetized and mechanically ventilated in sternal recumbency with known tidal volumes and breathing frequencies. The work done by the ventilator was measured, and these values were applied to the combinations of tidal volumes and breathing frequencies used by the birds to breathe at rest. We found the respiratory system of high-altitude species to be of a similar size, but consistently more compliant than that of low-altitude sister taxa, although this did not translate to a significantly reduced work of breathing. The metabolic cost of breathing was estimated to be between 1 and 3% of basal metabolic rate, as low or lower than estimates for other groups of tetrapods.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".