Knowledge Tree
Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework
Facts (17)
Sources
Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework frontiersin.org Sep 28, 2022 17 facts
referenceThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' was edited by Tasmin Rymer of James Cook University and reviewed by Pedro Dias of Universidad Veracruzana and Douglas E. Crews of The Ohio State University.
claimJW was involved in the design of the investigations and provided funding for the research presented in the article titled 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework'.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' argue that interpreting non-responsiveness to restraint-stress as generalized suppression should be a secondary interpretation, ideally supported by evidence of non-response to other predictable cues.
claimThe authors of the article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
claimThe authors of the article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' are solely responsible for the claims expressed within the article, and these claims do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated organizations, the publisher, the editors, or the reviewers.
claimJohn C. Wingfield is the corresponding author for the article "Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework."
claimThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' is edited by Tasmin Rymer of James Cook University, Australia.
claimKW conducted the research and drafted the manuscript for the article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework', while JW was involved in the design of the investigations and provided funding; both authors contributed to writing and revising the manuscript.
perspectiveThe authors of 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' argue that current models of physiological response fail to generalize because they do not consider a sufficiently large suite of risks.
claimThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY).
claimThe article "Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework" was submitted to the Behavioral and Evolutionary Ecology section of the journal Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution.
measurementThe investigations presented in the article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' were funded by the University of California, Davis Endowment in Physiology and NSF grant numbers ARC – 0909133, BIO-1066241, and IOS-1558049 to JW.
measurementThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' was received on May 27, 2022, accepted on September 5, 2022, and published on September 29, 2022.
referenceThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' was authored by K. R. Word, S. H. Austin, and J. C. Wingfield and published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution on September 29, 2022.
claimThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' was reviewed by Pedro Dias of Universidad Veracruzana, Mexico, and Douglas E. Crews of The Ohio State University, United States.
claimThe article 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework' identifies allostasis, allostatic load, perturbation resistance potential, glucocorticoid, and environment as key concepts.
claimKW conducted the research and drafted the manuscript for the article titled 'Allostasis revisited: A perception, variation, and risk framework'.