Prey Capturing Dynamics and Nanomechanically Graded Cutting Apparatus of Dragonfly Nymph
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aquatic predatory insects, like the nymphs of a dragonfly, use rapid movements to catch their prey and it presents challenges in terms of movements due to drag forces. Dragonfly nymphs are known to be voracious predators with structures and movements that are yet to be fully understood. Thus, we examine two main mouthparts of the dragonfly nymph (Libellulidae: Insecta: Odonata) that are used in prey capturing and cutting the prey. To observe and analyze the preying mechanism under water, we used high-speed photography and, electron microscopy. The morphological details suggest that the prey-capturing labium is a complex grasping mechanism with additional sensory organs that serve some functionality. The time taken for the protraction and retraction of labium during prey capture was estimated to be 187 ± 54 ms, suggesting that these nymphs have a rapid prey mechanism. The Young's modulus and hardness of the mandibles were estimated to be 9.1 ± 1.9 GPa and 0.85 ± 0.13 GPa, respectively. Such mechanical properties of the mandibles make them hard tools that can cut into the exoskeleton of the prey and also resistant to wear. Thus, studying such mechanisms with their sensory capabilities provides a unique opportunity to design and develop bioinspired underwater deployable mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 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".