Brain size variation along altitudinal gradients in the Asiatic Toad (<i>Bufo gargarizans</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Size changes in brain and brain regions along altitudinal gradients provide insight into the trade‐off between energetic expenditure and cognitive capacity. We investigated the brain size variations of the Asiatic Toad ( Bufo gargarizans ) across altitudes from 700 m to 3,200 m. A total of 325 individuals from 11 sites and two transects were sampled. To reduce confounding factors, all sampling sites within each transect were within a maximum distance of 85 km and an altitudinal difference close to 2,000 m. Brains were dissected, and five regions were both measured directly and with 3D CT scan. There is a significant negative correlation between the relative whole‐brain volume (to snout‐vent length) and altitude. Furthermore, the relative volumes (to whole‐brain volume) of optic tectum and cerebellum also decrease along the altitudinal gradients, while the telencephalon increases its relative volume along the gradients. Therefore, our results are mostly consistent with the expensive brain hypothesis and the functional constraint hypothesis. We suggest that most current hypotheses are not mutually exclusive and data supporting one hypothesis are often partially consistent with others. More studies on mechanisms are needed to explain the brain size evolution in natural populations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".