Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomechanical, behavioural, and morphological adaptations affecting lift and drag on tropical stream fish (five loricariids and one gyrinocheilid) are analyzed. The drag on fish attached to a surface is directly measured for the first time, allowing the lift coefficient to be inferred. Mean drag coefficients (0.2–0.9, based on projected frontal area) are 2 to 30 times the equivalent frictional coefficients for laminar flow for smooth blisters attached to a surface. Fineness ratios (total length / maximal height, l/h = 6.7–9.0), flattening (maximal body width / maximal height, b/h = 0.9–2.0), and lengthening (distance from end of rostrum to maximal height / total length, x/l = 0.17–0.22) are similar to optimal values for technical bodies of low drag (smooth blisters attached to surfaces: 10, 2, and 0.3 for l/h, b/h, and x/l, respectively). The station-holding ability of Gyrinocheilus aymonieri (Tirant, 1883) (closed oral sucker) is compared with that of the loricariids (open oral suckers) using live and dead slipping velocities (Vliveand Vdead; water velocity at which live and dead fish first move backwards against the current, respectively) measured on a smooth Perspex®surface. Gyrinocheilus aymonieri has the greatest station-holding ability (Vlive= 59.1 cm·s–1, Vlive– Vdead= 45.7 cm·s–1). Fish with high Vdeadand low Vlive– Vdeadvalues rely more on frictional devices (e.g., spines and odontodes) for station-holding than on oral suction (e.g., fish of the genera Otocinclus Cope, 1871 and Hypostomus Lacépède, 1803), whereas those with low Vdeadand high Vlive– Vdeadvalues place a greater emphasis on suction (e.g., G. aymonieri and the genus Pterygoplichthys Gill, 1858). Stream fishes maximize slipping speed through high densities (1.06–1.15 g·cm–3), high frictional coefficients (0.12–1.2 on a Perspex®surface), and high rheotactic suction pressures (26–173 Pa). In addition, a negative lift coefficient of –0.5 is calculated for the genus Chaetostoma von Tschudi, 1846.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".