Individual variation and the biomechanics of maneuvering flight in hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An animal's maneuverability will determine the outcome of many of its most important interactions. A common approach to studying maneuverability is to force the animal to perform a specific maneuver or to try to elicit maximal performance. Recently, the availability of wider-field tracking technology has allowed for high-throughput measurements of voluntary behavior, an approach that produces large volumes of data. Here, we show how these data allow for measures of inter-individual variation that are necessary to evaluate how performance depends on other traits, both within and among species. We use simulated data to illustrate best practices when sampling a large number of voluntary maneuvers. Our results show how the sample average can be the best measure of inter-individual variation, whereas the sample maximum is neither repeatable nor a useful metric of the true variation among individuals. Our studies with flying hummingbirds reveal that their maneuvers fall into three major categories: simple translations, simple rotations and complex turns. Simple maneuvers are largely governed by distinct morphological and/or physiological traits. Complex turns involve both translations and rotations, and are more subject to inter-individual differences that are not explained by morphology. This three-part framework suggests that different wingbeat kinematics can be used to maximize specific aspects of maneuverability. Thus, a broad explanatory framework has emerged for interpreting hummingbird maneuverability. This framework is general enough to be applied to other types of locomotion, and informative enough to explain mechanisms of maneuverability that could be applied to both animals and bio-inspired robots.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".