MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3092664639 · doi:10.1242/jeb.234104

Accelerometry predicts muscle ultrastructure and flight capabilities in a wild bird

2020· article· en· W3092664639 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristen Lalla, Shannon Whelan, Karl Brown, Allison Patterson, Ana Gabriela Jiménez, Scott A. Hatch, Kyle H. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsUltrastructureForagingBiologyInsect flightWingAnatomyZoologyLeg musclePredationEcologyPhysical medicine and rehabilitationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Muscle ultrastructure is closely linked with athletic performance in humans and lab animals, and presumably plays an important role in the movement ecology of wild animals. Movement is critical for wild animals to forage, escape predators, and reproduce. However, little evidence directly links muscle condition to locomotion in the wild. We used GPS-accelerometers to examine flight behaviour and muscle biopsies in breeding black-legged kittiwakes (Rissa tridactyla) to assess muscle ultrastructure. Biopsied kittiwakes showed similar reproductive success and subsequent over-winter survival to non-biopsied kittiwakes, suggesting that our study method did not greatly impact foraging ability. Muscle fibre diameter was negatively associated with wing beat frequency, suggesting that larger muscle fibres facilitate powered flight. Number of nuclei per fibre was positively associated with average airspeed, likely because higher power output needed by faster-flying birds required plasticity for muscle fibre recruitment. These results suggest the potential for flight behaviour to predict muscle ultrastructure.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→