MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fish functional design and swimming performance

2004· article· en· W2123984892 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Biology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropulsionPropulsorFish <Actinopterygii>Context (archaeology)BiologyTroutTransient (computer programming)Marine engineeringComputer scienceFisheryAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifications of fish swimming are reviewed as a prelude to discussing functional design and performance in an ecological context. Webb (1984 a , 1998 ) classified fishes based on body shape and locomotor mode into three basic categories: body and caudal fin (BCF) periodic, BCF transient (fast‐starts, turns) and median and paired fin (MPF) swimmers. Swimming performance and functional design is discussed for each of these categories. Webb hypothesized that specialization in any given category would limit performance in any other. For example, routine MPF swimmers should be penalized in BCF transient (fast‐start propulsion). Recent studies offer much support for Webb's construct but also suggest some necessary amendments. In particular, design and performance compromises for different swimming modes are associated with fish that employ the same propulsor for more than one task (coupled, e.g . the same propulsor for routine steady swimming and fast‐starts). For example, pike (BCF transient specialist) achieve better acceleration performance than trout (generalist). Pike steady (BCF periodic) performance, however, is inferior to that of trout. Fish that employ different propulsors for different tasks (decoupled, e.g . MPF propulsion for low‐speed routine swimming and BCF motions for fast‐starts) do not show serious performance compromises. For example, certain MPF low‐speed swimmers show comparable fast‐start performance to BCF forms. Arguably, the evolution of decoupled locomotor systems was a major factor underlying the adaptive radiation of teleosts. Low‐speed routine propulsion releases MPF swimmers from the morphological constraints imposed by streamlining allowing for a high degree of variability in form. This contrasts with BCF periodic swimming specialists where representatives of four vertebrate classes show evolutionary convergence on a single, optimal ‘thunniform’ design. However, recent experimental studies on the comparative performance of carangiform and thunniform swimmers contradict some of the predictions of hydromechanical models. This is addressed in regard to the swimming performance, energetics and muscle physiology of tuna. The concept of gait is reviewed in the context of coupled and decoupled locomotor systems. Biomimetic approaches to the development of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles have given a new context and impetus to research and this is discussed in relation to current views of fish functional design and swimming performance. Suggestions are made for possible future research directions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.287
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it