Pinnipeds with proportionally wider aortic bulbs make longer dives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The enlarged size of the aortic bulb is thought to enhance the ability of marine mammals to remain underwater for extended periods. However, a convincing link between aortic bulb size and diving capacity has not been established. Using new and existing data, we examined the relationships between body size, maximum and routine dive duration, and aortic bulb size of pinnipeds. Comparisons among seven species of pinnipeds showed that the diameter of the aortic bulb increases allometrically with body mass (aortic bulb diameter = 0.58 × body mass 0.41 ). We also found a linear relationship between routine dive duration and relative aortic bulb diameter (routine dive duration = 0.20 × relative aortic bulb diameter − 3.30), but no apparent relationship with maximum dive duration. Our results indicate that relative aortic bulb diameter influences diving capacity, providing further evidence that the aortic bulb is an adaptation to diving. Specifically, the relative diameter of the aortic bulb partially determines how long pinnipeds can routinely remain underwater. This has implications for the ability of different species of marine mammals to adapt to projected environmental changes and effectively forage or evade threats in altered habitats.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".