MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412550463 · doi:10.1242/jeb.250374

Personality and metabolic scope in wild mice

2025· article· en· W4412550463 on OpenAlexafffund
Wyeth Blumberg, Alyssa Fiedler, Vincent Careau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics and Physical Performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsPersonalityBasal metabolic ratePeromyscusPsychologyBig Five personality traitsScope (computer science)Social psychologyBiologyEcologyEndocrinologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is intuitive to expect a relationship between animal personality (i.e. consistent individual behavioural differences) and metabolic rate, but the literature contains mixed results. Most studies have measured resting metabolic rate (RMR); yet, other metrics such as V̇O2,max and metabolic scope may also relate to personality. Here, we explored the relationships between personality (docility and exploration) and three metabolic traits (RMR, V̇O2,max and metabolic scope) in wild mice (Peromyscus leucopus). We found no among-individual correlation (rind) between personality and motivation to run during V̇O2,max trials, suggesting that using our standard forced-exercise test did not introduce a personality-related sampling bias. At the within-individual level, we found a positive and significant relationship between docility and metabolic scope, and the correlation was entirely driven by V̇O2,max. Finally, we found a positive and significant rind between RMR and time spent grooming during the open-field test, which may be caused by the stress response.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicGenetics and Physical PerformanceFrench-language works237,207