Rapid manoeuvre of fan worms (Annelida: Sabellidae) through tubes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple variables determine the success of an escape response of an animal, and the rapidity of the escape manoeuvre is often the most important. Fan worms (Annelida: Sabellidae) can rapidly withdraw their tentacles, which are covered in heavily ciliated ramifications called pinnules, into their tubes to protect them from approaching threats. Here, we explore the dynamic and mechanistic features behind this escape manoeuvre. The escape responses of fan worms were recorded by high-speed videography and quantified by computerized motion analysis, showing an ultrahigh retraction speed of 272±135 mm s-1 (8±4 body lengths s-1). We found that fan worms possess powerful muscle-driven systems, which can generate contractive forces up to 36 times their body weight. In order to achieve these rapid, forceful movements through seawater without damaging their tentacles, fan worms have developed functional morphological adaptations to reduce fluidic drag, including the flattening of their radiolar pinnules and the deformation of bodily segmental ridges. Our hydrodynamic models indicate that these mechanical processes can decrease fluidic drag by 47%, trapped mass by 75% and friction coefficient by 89%. These strategies allow fan worms to execute rapid escape responses and could inspire the design of fast in-pipe 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".