MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915920314 · doi:10.1093/iob/obz001

Flow Features of the Near Wake of the Australian Boobook Owl (Ninox boobook) During Flapping Flight Suggest an Aerodynamic Mechanism of Sound Suppression for Stealthy Flight

2019· article· en· W2915920314 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Lawley, Hadar Ben-Gida, Krishnamoorthy Krishnan, Erin E. Hackett, Gregory A. Kopp, Gareth J. Morgan, Christopher G. Guglielmo, Roi Gurka

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Organismal Biology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeFlappingAerodynamicsSturnusVortex sheddingParticle image velocimetryAcousticsWind tunnelBird flightKármán vortex streetPhysicsMechanicsMeteorologyTurbulenceAerospace engineeringGeologyWingReynolds numberEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Synopsis The mechanisms associated with the ability of owls to fly silently have been the subject of scientific interest for many decades and may be relevant to bio-inspired design to reduce noise of flapping and non-flapping flying devices. Here, we characterize the near wake dynamics and the associated flow structures produced during flight of the Australian boobook owl (Ninox boobook). Three individual owls were flown at 8 ms−1 in a climatic avian wind tunnel. The velocity field in the wake was sampled at 500 Hz using long-duration high-speed particle image velocimetry (PIV) while the wing kinematics were imaged simultaneously using high speed video. The time series of velocity maps that were acquired over several consecutive wingbeat cycles enabled us to characterize the wake patterns and to associate them with the phases of the wingbeat cycle. We found that the owl wake was dramatically different from other birds measured under the same flow conditions (i.e., western sandpiper, Calidris mauri and European starling, Sturnus vulgaris). The near wake of the owl did not exhibit any apparent shedding of organized vortices. Instead, a more chaotic wake pattern was observed, in which the characteristic scales of vorticity (associated with turbulence) are substantially smaller in comparison to other birds. Estimating the pressure field developed in the wake shows that owls reduce the pressure Hessian (i.e., the pressure distribution) to approximately zero. We hypothesize that owls manipulate the near wake to suppress the aeroacoustic signal by controlling the size of vortices generated in the wake, which are associated with noise reduction through suppression of the pressure field. Understanding how specialized feather structures, wing morphology, or flight kinematics of owls contribute to this effect remains a challenge for additional study.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative Organismal BiologySame topicBiomimetic flight and propulsion mechanismsFrench-language works237,207