Effects of stomach stones on the buoyancy and equilibrium of a floating crocodilian: a computational analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A three-dimensional mathematical/computational model of the crocodilian Alligator mississippiensis has been developed to investigate the influence of gastroliths on crocodilian buoyancy. The model is self-correcting, recovers from large perturbations, and can replicate the body orientations and degrees of immersion seen in living crocodilians that have attained equilibrium with respect to the competing forces of buoyancy and weight. For a range of lung deflations where the model was still positively buoyant, adding gastroliths of mass equal to 1% of the body mass has the effect of lowering the body, on average, by 2.6% of the maximum trunk depth while simultaneously increasing the inclination of the body with its sagittal plane. With the lungs fully inflated, the model would become negatively buoyant only when loaded with stones weighing more than 6% of the total body mass. Without gastroliths the body would sink when the lungs were deflated by 40%50%. In all situations the model was resistant to capsizing. The relatively small amounts of gastroliths (<2% body mass) found in aquatic tetrapods are considered to be inconsequential for buoyancy and stability, and the lungs are the principle agent for hydrostatic buoyancy control.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".