MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386407103 · doi:10.1242/jeb.246313

A neurophysiological limit and its biogeographic correlations: cold-induced spreading depolarization in tropical butterflies

2023· article· en· W4386407103 on OpenAlexafffund
Mads Kuhlmann Andersen, Quentin Willot, Heath A. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarlsbergfondetEuropean Commission
KeywordsDepolarizationInsectBiologyEcologyNicheBiophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The physiology of insects is directly influenced by environmental temperature, and thermal tolerance is therefore intrinsically linked to their thermal niche and distribution. Understanding the mechanisms that limit insect thermal tolerance is crucial to predicting biogeography and range shifts. Recent studies on locusts and flies suggest that the critical thermal minimum (CTmin) follows a loss of CNS function via a spreading depolarization. We hypothesized that other insect taxa share this phenomenon. Here, we investigate whether spreading depolarization events occur in butterflies exposed to cold. Supporting our hypothesis, we found that exposure to stressful cold induced spreading depolarization in all 12 species tested. This reinforces the idea that spreading depolarization is a common mechanism underlying the insect CTmin. Furthermore, our results highlight how CNS function is tuned to match the environment of a species. Further research into the physiology underlying spreading depolarization will likely elucidate key mechanisms determining insect thermal tolerance and ecology.

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: none
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicPhysiological and biochemical adaptations→French-language works237,207→