MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2734882761 · doi:10.3390/nu9070743

Sugar Metabolism in Hummingbirds and Nectar Bats

2017· review· en· W2734882761 on OpenAlexafffund
Raul K. Suarez, Kenneth C. Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet, Metabolism, and Disease
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraUniversity of California Institute for Mexico and the United StatesNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNectarSugarBiologyEnergy metabolismHummingbirdZoologyBotanyFood sciencePollenEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hummingbirds and nectar bats coevolved with the plants they visit to feed on floral nectars rich in sugars. The extremely high metabolic costs imposed by small size and hovering flight in combination with reliance upon sugars as their main source of dietary calories resulted in convergent evolution of a suite of structural and functional traits. These allow high rates of aerobic energy metabolism in the flight muscles, fueled almost entirely by the oxidation of dietary sugars, during flight. High intestinal sucrase activities enable high rates of sucrose hydrolysis. Intestinal absorption of glucose and fructose occurs mainly through a paracellular pathway. In the fasted state, energy metabolism during flight relies on the oxidation of fat synthesized from previously-ingested sugar. During repeated bouts of hover-feeding, the enhanced digestive capacities, in combination with high capacities for sugar transport and oxidation in the flight muscles, allow the operation of the "sugar oxidation cascade", the pathway by which dietary sugars are directly oxidized by flight muscles during exercise. It is suggested that the potentially harmful effects of nectar diets are prevented by locomotory exercise, just as in human hunter-gatherers who consume large quantities of honey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicDiet, Metabolism, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207