MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213291401 · doi:10.1242/jeb.243361

Jumping in lantern bugs (Hemiptera, Fulgoridae)

2021· article· en· W3213291401 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Malcolm Burrows, Abin Ghosh, Gregory P. Sutton, H. M. Yeshwanth, Stephen M. Rogers, Siddharth Sane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHemiptera Insect Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArmy Research OfficeUK Research and InnovationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMedical Research CouncilRoyal SocietyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsJumpingJumpHemipteraAccelerationLanternBiologyKinematicsAnatomyMechanicsMathematicsPhysicsZoologyPaleontologyClassical mechanicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lantern bugs are amongst the largest of the jumping hemipteran bugs, with body lengths reaching 44 mm and masses reaching 0.7 g. They are up to 600 times heavier than smaller hemipterans that jump powerfully using catapult mechanisms to store energy. Does a similar mechanism also propel jumping in these much larger insects? The jumping performance of two species of lantern bugs (Hemiptera, Auchenorrhyncha, family Fulgoridae) from India and Malaysia was therefore analysed from high-speed videos. The kinematics showed that jumps were propelled by rapid and synchronous movements of both hind legs, with their trochantera moving first. The hind legs were 20-40% longer than the front legs, which was attributable to longer tibiae. It took 5-6 ms to accelerate to take-off velocities reaching 4.65 m s-1 in the best jumps by female Kalidasa lanata. During these jumps, adults experienced an acceleration of 77 g, required an energy expenditure of 4800 μJ and a power output of 900 mW, and exerted a force of 400 mN. The required power output of the thoracic jumping muscles was 21,000 W kg-1, 40 times greater than the maximum active contractile limit of muscle. Such a jumping performance therefore required a power amplification mechanism with energy storage in advance of the movement, as in their smaller relatives. These large lantern bugs are near isometrically scaled-up versions of their smaller relatives, still achieve comparable, if not higher, take-off velocities, and outperform other large jumping insects such as grasshoppers.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicHemiptera Insect StudiesFrench-language works237,207