Convergence of undulatory swimming kinematics across a diversity of fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fishes exhibit an astounding diversity of locomotor behaviors from classic swimming with their body and fins to jumping, flying, walking, and burrowing. Fishes that use their body and caudal fin (BCF) during undulatory swimming have been traditionally divided into modes based on the length of the propulsive body wave and the ratio of head:tail oscillation amplitude: anguilliform, subcarangiform, carangiform, and thunniform. This classification was first proposed based on key morphological traits, such as body stiffness and elongation, to group fishes based on their expected swimming mechanics. Here, we present a comparative study of 44 diverse species quantifying the kinematics and morphology of BCF-swimming fishes. Our results reveal that most species we studied share similar oscillation amplitude during steady locomotion that can be modeled using a second-degree order polynomial. The length of the propulsive body wave was shorter for species classified as anguilliform and longer for those classified as thunniform, although substantial variability existed both within and among species. Moreover, there was no decrease in head:tail amplitude from the anguilliform to thunniform mode of locomotion as we expected from the traditional classification. While the expected swimming modes correlated with morphological traits, they did not accurately represent the kinematics of BCF locomotion. These results indicate that even fish species differing as substantially in morphology as tuna and eel exhibit statistically similar two-dimensional midline kinematics and point toward unifying locomotor hydrodynamic mechanisms that can serve as the basis for understanding aquatic locomotion and controlling biomimetic aquatic 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".