MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376106406 · doi:10.1063/5.0145208

Strouhal and Reynolds number scaling of force production in the Mountain Pine Beetle

2023· article· en· W4376106406 on OpenAlexaff
Zahra Hajati, Antonia E. Musso, Zachary Weller, Maya L. Evenden, Jaime G. Wong

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Insect Ecology and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrouhal numberReynolds numberScalingPhysicsPopulationMechanicsGeometryMathematicsDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Mountain Pine Beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae Hopkins (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae), a destructive pest found in the pine forests of Western North America, has exhibited range expansion and unprecedented population growth due to climate change. As this insect disperses by flight, understanding its flight mechanics may help to model and predict its rate of spread through the environment. In this work, aerodynamic scaling relationships—previously identified in idealized, predominantly two-dimensional and numerical cases—are applied to the case of live flight. In particular, this aims to improve the statistical confidence in predicting sex and age differences in flight performance, which have historically been analyzed in ecology using dimensional quantities. Thrust coefficient is found to scale with the square of Strouhal number, as has been found in prior studies. However, with respect to Reynolds number, scaling was with the inverse of Reynolds number, rather than the inverse of the square root. We demonstrate here that the established Strouhal number and Reynolds number scaling of force coefficient can be successfully extended not just to highly three-dimensional flows, and lower Reynolds number flows, but remains robust even across distinct individuals within a population of beetles. Using this scaling, we observe that males fly with a greater mean thrust coefficient and Strouhal number compared to females (p < 0.001), which is a significant improvement in statistical confidence over prior studies, which could not identify a major difference between sexes (p > 0.05). Meanwhile, there is also a significant difference in thrust coefficient between different age cohorts, with younger beetles exhibiting a lower magnitude than other age groups (p < 0.05).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.339
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicForest Insect Ecology and ManagementFrench-language works237,207