Hummingbirds control turning velocity using body orientation and turning radius using asymmetrical wingbeat kinematics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turning in flight requires reorientation of force, which birds, bats and insects accomplish either by shifting body position and total force in concert or by using left-right asymmetries in wingbeat kinematics. Although both mechanisms have been observed in multiple species, it is currently unknown how each is used to control changes in trajectory. We addressed this problem by measuring body and wingbeat kinematics as hummingbirds tracked a revolving feeder, and estimating aerodynamic forces using a quasi-steady model. During arcing turns, hummingbirds symmetrically banked the stroke plane of both wings, and the body, into turns, supporting a body-dependent mechanism. However, several wingbeat asymmetries were present during turning, including a higher and flatter outer wingtip path and a lower more deviated inner wingtip path. A quasi-steady analysis of arcing turns performed with different trajectories revealed that changes in radius were associated with asymmetrical kinematics and forces, and changes in velocity were associated with symmetrical kinematics and forces. Collectively, our results indicate that both body-dependent and -independent force orientation mechanisms are available to hummingbirds, and that these kinematic strategies are used to meet the separate aerodynamic challenges posed by changes in velocity and turning radius.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".