A comparative study of the structure and function of the adhesive apparatus of the Cyclopteridae and Gobiesocidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ventral adhesive discs of the cyclopterid Eumicrotremus orbis and the gobiesocid Gobiesox maeandricus were compared in regards to structure and efficiency. The disc of E. orbis was found to be the more efficient, being able to support, on the average, 843.6 grams per square centimeter of disc area as compared to 453.8 g/cm² for G. maeandricus. The firmer, more compact nature and the greater use of the muscles in the function of the cyclopterid disc accounted for this greater efficiency. The creation of a negative pressure during the adhering process in both species was empirically demonstrated for the first time. G. maeandricus was shown to create a greater suction than E. orbis while supporting an equivalent weight. The pectoral fins were found to be vital in the function of the disc of G. maeandricus. It was concluded that the efficiency of the discs is related to body form; thus E. orbis with a globular, unstreamlined body, has the more efficient disc, while in G. maeandricus, in which the body is flattened and streamlined, the disc is less efficient. A new mechanism, described as a sliding and bending property of the lepidotrichs of the fin-rays, is presented; the role of this mechanism in the function of the adhesive disc of G. maeandricus and in the locomotive function of fins in general is discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".