Bibliographic record
Abstract
High altitude is physiologically challenging for vertebrate life for many reasons, including hypoxia (low environmental oxygen); yet, many birds thrive at altitude. Compared with mammals, birds have additional enhancements to their oxygen transport cascade, the conceptual series of steps responsible for acquiring oxygen from the environment and transporting it to the mitochondria. These adaptations have allowed them to inhabit a number of high-altitude regions. Waterfowl are a taxon prolific at altitude. This minireview explores the physiological responses of high-altitude waterfowl (geese and ducks), comparing the strategies of lifelong high-altitude residents to those of transient high-altitude performers, providing insight into how birds champion high-altitude life. In particular, this review highlights and contrasts the physiological hypoxia responses of bar-headed geese ( Anser indicus), birds that migrate biannually through the Himalayas (4,500–6,500 m), and Andean geese ( Chloephaga melanoptera), lifelong residents of the Andes (4,000–5,500 m). These two species exhibit markedly different ventilatory and cardiovascular strategies for coping with hypoxia: bar-headed geese robustly increase convective oxygen transport elements (i.e., heart rate and total ventilation) whereas Andean geese rely predominantly on enhancements that are likely morphological in origin (i.e., increases in lung oxygen diffusion and cardiac stroke volume). The minireview compares the short- and long-term cardiovascular and ventilatory trade-offs of these different physiological strategies and offers hypotheses surrounding their origins. It also draws parallels to high-altitude human physiology and research, and identifies a number of areas of further research. The field of high-altitude avian physiology offers a unique and broadly applicable insight into physiological enhancements in hypoxia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".