The Insect Fascicle Morphology Research and Bionic Needle Pierced Mechanical Mechanism Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, mosquito and cicadas two kinds of insects fascicle were studied, and observed the fascicle surface morphology and distribution through scanning electron microscopy, discussed the height of the six parameters of sawtooth and analyzed quantitatively, compared the two types of fascicle in micro-structure size, and shape, the experiment results show that there are obviously different among the two mouth fascicle morphological structure. Triangular sawtooth are all clearly visible in the two kinds of insect fascicle, in which the mosquito has the small microstructure, and the cicada has the larger one; microstructure of mosquitoes tilt to the rear part of the fascicle, while the microstructure of cicada is symmetric on bottom corner. Based on non-smooth surface structure of fascicle obvious principles of drag reduction effect, the model of drag reduction bionic syringe is proposed, Designed a bionic drag painless needles, and simulated needle piercing power is also measured. Bionic needle surface microstructure can help reduce the needle to decrease the contact area, form rolling, friction, and thus reduce the resistance to needle piercing. Bionic needle has been proved that its puncture resistance is less than smooth one consequently has significant drag reduction effects. Keywords: Insects fascicle; surface morphology; bionic needles; drag reduction
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".