Aerodynamic Interaction of Migratory Birds in Gliding Flight
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Many studies suggest that migratory bird groups fly in a V-formation to improve their aerodynamic efficiency, the goal being to reduce their energy expenditure to fly longer distances. To further validate this hypothesis, we numerically simulated the aerodynamic interaction of two gliding migratory birds and evaluated the aerodynamic forces as a function of the bird spacing. (2) Methods: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) was used to model the flow pattern in and around the wake of Canada geese flying at an altitude of 1000 m and a speed of 13.9 m/s. (3) Results: The post-processing of the 3D results revealed a complex flow structure composed of two contra-rotating vortices developing at the wing tip. (4) Conclusions: In a plane perpendicular to the main flow direction, we showed that the bird’s wake could be broken down into two distinct zones: the downwash zone and the upwash zone, the latter being used by birds flying in formation to reduce their energy expenditure. The results of our study suggested an optimal wingtip spacing of -26cm to maximize the lift/drag ratio that characterizes aerodynamic efficiency.
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".