Interpretation of body-mounted accelerometry in flying animals and estimation of biomechanical power
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An idealized energy fluctuation model of a bird's body undergoing horizontal flapping flight is developed, focusing on the biomechanical power discernible to a body-mounted accelerometer. Expressions for flight body power constructed from root mean square dynamic body accelerations and wingstroke frequency are derived from first principles and presented in dimensionally appropriate units. As wingstroke frequency increases, the model generally predicts a gradual transition in power from a linear to an asymptotically cubic relationship. However, the onset of this transition and the degree to which this occurs depends upon whether and how forward vibrations are exploited for temporary energy storage and retrieval. While this may vary considerably between species and individual birds, it is found that a quadrature phase arrangement is generally advantageous during level flight. Gravity-aligned vertical acceleration always enters into the calculation of body power, but, whenever forward acceleration becomes relevant, its contribution is subtractive. Several novel kinematic measures descriptive of flapping flight are postulated, offering fresh insights into the processes involved in airborne locomotion. The limitations of the model are briefly discussed, and departures from its predictions during ascending and descending flight evaluated. These findings highlight how body-mounted accelerometers can offer a valuable, insightful and non-invasive technique for investigating the flight of free-ranging birds and bats.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".