Bat wing airfoil and planform structures relating to aerodynamic cleanliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we examine 12 species of Western Australian bat for anatomical and morphometric attributes related to wing lift and drag characteristics. We present values for bat wing camber (typically 6.5–9%) and its location, measurements of wing planform and tip shape (typically elliptical but with two different tip designs), dimensions of wing leading-edge flaps (typically 8–10.5% of hand wing chord but with some species having much larger flaps up to 18%) and then discuss several features related to airflow separation control. All species assessed had thin, low-camber airfoil sections, an optimisation appropriate to the range of Reynolds Numbers in which bats fly. Wing relative cleanliness was consistent with, and functionally appropriate to, species foraging strategy. The interceptors had the point of maximum camber well forward and no trailing edge wing fences, optimisations for minimum drag generation. The air-superiority bats had leading-edge fences optimised for maximum lift generation while maintaining low drag. Surface bats were characterised by their low-aspect-ratio wingtips and the absence of optimisations for either low section drag or high lift. The frugivore and the carnivore appear to be discrete optimisations while the emballinurid had a long and broad leading edge flap in combination with a high-aspect-ratio tip. We propose a range of lift and drag coefficient values for use in models of metabolic power output.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".