Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anatomy of the suction disk of two species of echeneid fishes, Echeneis naucrates L., 1758 and E. neucratoides Zuiew, 1786, is described, and measurements of their suction performance on both smooth and textured surfaces are given. Disk muscles erect or depress the numerous paired laminae, or toothed plates, which bear two to four rows of posteriorly directed spinules. The erect laminae create a sub-ambient chamber, allowing these fishes to adhere to other fish and inanimate objects. Resting sub-ambient suction pressure differentials were recorded, as were the greatest sub-ambient pressure differentials as the fish were pulled posteriorly to simulate drag induced by a swimming host. The resting pressure differential averaged –0.5 kPa, with no significant difference between Plexiglas ® and shark skin surfaces. With a force applied to their caudal peduncle, the echeneids generated suction pressure differentials averaging –92.7 kPa within the disk cavity while attached to Plexiglas. On shark skin, the use of spinules increased friction and reduced the maximum sub-ambient suction pressure differential to –46.6 kPa; considerably more force (17.4 N) was required to dislodge the echeneids from the shark skin than from the smooth Plexiglas (11.2 N).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".