Thunniform swimming: muscle dynamics and mechanical power production of aerobic fibres in yellowfin tuna (<i>Thunnus albacares</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the mechanical properties of deep red aerobic muscle of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), using both in vivo and in vitro methods. In fish swimming in a water tunnel at 1-3 L s(-1) (where L is fork length), muscle length changes were recorded by sonomicrometry, and activation timing was quantified by electromyography. In some fish a tendon buckle was also implanted on the caudal tendon to measure instantaneous muscle forces transmitted to the tail. Between measurement sites at 0.45 to 0.65 L, the wave of muscle shortening progressed along the body at a relatively high velocity of 1.7 L per tail beat period, and a significant phase shift (31+/-4 degrees ) occurred between muscle shortening and local midline curvature, both suggesting red muscle power is directed posteriorly, rather than causing local body bending, which is a hallmark of thunniform swimming. Muscle activation at 0.53 L was initiated at about 50 degrees of the tail beat period and ceased at about 160 degrees , where 90 degrees is peak muscle length and 180 degrees is minimum length. Strain amplitude in the deep red fibres at 0.5 L was +/-5.4%, double that predicted from midline curvature analysis. Work and power production were measured in isolated bundles of red fibres from 0.5 L by the work loop technique. Power was maximal at 3-4 Hz and fell to less than 50% of maximum after 6 Hz. Based on the timing of activation, muscle strain, tail beat frequencies and forces in the caudal tendon while swimming, we conclude that yellowfin tuna, like skipjack, use their red muscles under conditions that produce near-maximal power output while swimming. Interestingly, the red muscles of yellowfin tuna are slower than those of skipjack, which corresponds with the slower tail beat frequencies and cruising speeds in yellowfin.
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".