MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980653769 · doi:10.1242/jeb.212563

Huffin’ and puffin: seabirds use large bills to dissipate heat from energetically demanding flight

2019· article· en· W2980653769 on OpenAlexafffund
Hannes A. Schraft, Shannon Whelan, Kyle H. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHeat exchangerEnvironmental scienceThermal management of electronic devices and systemsExcess heatEngineeringThermodynamicsNuclear engineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Endothermic animals regulate body temperature by balancing metabolic heat production and heat exchange with the environment. Heat dissipation is especially important during and immediately after demanding activities such as flapping flight, the most energetically expensive mode of locomotion. As uninsulated appendages, bird bills present a potential avenue for efficient heat dissipation. Puffins possess large bills and are members of the bird family with the highest known flight cost. Here, we used infrared thermography to test whether wild tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata) use their bills to dissipate excess heat after energetically-expensive flight. Both bill surface temperature and the proportion of total heat exchange occurring at the bill decreased with time since landing, suggesting that bills are used to dissipate excess metabolic heat. We propose that bill size in puffins may be shaped by opposing selective pressures that include dissipating heat after flight and conserving heat in cold air and water temperatures.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations30
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptationsFrench-language works237,207