Effect of microgravity on the swimming behaviour of larvae of the starfish<i>Pisaster ochraceus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Swimming larvae of the starfish Pisaster ochraceus rotate around their animalvegetal axis every 25 s ( 1230 rpm) and exhibit two patterns of swimming behaviour. They may swim with the animal pole forward in any direction or orient vertically (animal pole upward) and remain relatively stationary. Vertically oriented larvae adjust the pattern of rotation so that they present a larger surface area to gravity (holding behaviour). To determine how gravity is involved in the development and pattern of larval swimming behaviour, Pisaster larvae were raised in the aquatic research facility aboard the NASA space shuttle Endeavour (Mission STS 77). Control larvae raised in 1 g appeared to orient themselves along the gravity vector and to exhibit holding behaviour. Tracks of the larval swimming-pattern studies with a motion-analysis system demonstrated that larvae raised in microgravity swam in randomly oriented straight lines or broad arcs. Some of the tracks exhibited oscillations with a period of 25 s, while others did not. The results suggest that the holding behaviour, which normally serves as a response to gravity, develops despite the absence of gravitational clues. Possible mechanisms that the larvae may use to orient to gravity are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".