MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132640827 · doi:10.1242/jeb.005025

Mechanics of a `simple' ear: tympanal vibrations in noctuid moths

2007· article· en· W2132640827 on OpenAlexaff
James F. C. Windmill, J. H. Fullard, Daniel Robert

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsTympanum (architecture)Sound pressureVibrationPhysicsMechanoreceptorAcousticsAnatomyBiologyStimulationTympanMiddle ear

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomically, the ears of moths are considered to be among the simplest ears found in animals. Microscanning laser vibrometry was used to examine the surface vibrations of the entire tympanal region of the ears of the noctuid moths Agrotis exclamationis, Noctua pronuba, Xestia c-nigrum and Xestia triangulum. During stimulation with ultrasound at intensities known to activate receptor neurones, the tympanum vibrates with maximum deflection amplitudes at the location where the receptor cells attach. In the reportedly heterogeneous tympana of noctuid moths, this attachment site is an opaque zone that is surrounded by a transparent, thinner cuticular region. In response to sound pressure, this region moves relatively little compared with the opaque zone. Thus, the deflections of the moth tympanic membrane are not those of a simple circular drum. The acoustic sensitivity of the ear of N. pronuba, as measured on the attachment site, is 100+/-14 nm Pa(-1) (N=10), corresponding to tympanal motion of a mere 200 pm at sound pressure levels near the neural threshold.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207