MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377094107 · doi:10.1242/jeb.245712

Air sacs are a key adaptive trait of the insect respiratory system

2023· article· en· W4377094107 on OpenAlexaff
Jon F. Harrison, Evan McKenzie, Stav Talal, John J. Socha, Mark W. Westneat, Philip G. D. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFossil Insects in Amber
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersArgonne National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyTraitEvolutionary biologyAppendageAir sacsEcologyZoologyAnatomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air sacs are a well-known aspect of insect tracheal systems, but have received little research attention. In this Commentary, we suggest that the study of the distribution and function of air sacs in tracheate arthropods can provide insights of broad significance. We provide preliminary phylogenetic evidence that the developmental pathways for creation of air sacs are broadly conserved throughout the arthropods, and that possession of air sacs is strongly associated with a few traits, including the capacity for powerful flight, large body or appendage size and buoyancy control. We also discuss how tracheal compression can serve as an additional mechanism for achieving advection in tracheal systems. Together, these patterns suggest that the possession of air sacs has both benefits and costs that remain poorly understood. New technologies for visualization and functional analysis of tracheal systems provide exciting approaches for investigations that will be of broad significance for understanding invertebrate evolution.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicFossil Insects in AmberFrench-language works237,207