Pulmonary mechanics of high‐altitude waterfowl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work in this lab found that while both low and high‐altitude adapted species increase ventilation in response to hypoxia, high‐altitude species primarily increase tidal volume whereas low‐altitude species increase breathing frequency. Thus, we hypothesized that high‐altitude species should have higher respiratory compliance when compared to low‐altitude species to reduce the cost of breathing deeper. We measured dynamic and static compliance of the total system in five Andean species of ducks resident at Lake Titicaca, Peru and compared them to the low‐altitude migratory barnacle goose (n蠅6 for all groups). Static compliance was significantly higher in the high‐altitude ducks than the barnacle geese (1.8 ± 0.18 compared to 1.3 ± 0.06). Among the high‐altitude ducks the compliance was highest in the species that has spent the most evolutionary time at high‐altitude (2.98 ± 0.36), while the lowest compliance was found in the one species of diving duck studied (1.63 ± 0.23). The high‐altitude species also had a higher inspiratory capacity (215 ± 17 mL/kg) than the low‐altitude geese (154 ± 21 mL/kg). Thus high‐altitude species breathe with a more effective breathing pattern, reducing pulmonary dead space, without incurring an increased cost of overcoming elastic recoil forces, by increasing compliance of their respiratory system.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".