MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313872905 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0273

How squid swim and fly

2013· article· en· W2313872905 on OpenAlexaffvenue
R. K. O’Dor

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSquidBiologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Range (aeronautics)EcologyOceanographyEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Squid have been studied extensively since 1982 to quantitatively measure their cost of locomotion and compare it with costs for fishes that are their primary competitors in the ocean. Early work focused on oxygen consumption in swim tunnels and led to the use of jet pressure tags to relate captive studies to behaviour in nature. Dosidicus gigas (d’Orbigny, 1835) (jumbo flying squid or Humboldt squid), which has expanded its range more than 10-fold, is used to illustrate how “live fast, die young” squid can out compete fishes in changing times by both swimming and flying. Recent work has provided quantitative data on the costs of flying and this report provides some comparisons. Costs of flight in nature require new technology, which has fortunately arrived just in time. Accelerometry tags can now provide similar and perhaps better data on travel rate in nature, both in water and in air. These work on both squid and fish, so more and better comparisons are becoming possible.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.166
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations27
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCephalopods and Marine BiologyFrench-language works237,207