Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collective directional movement of animals occurs over both short distances and longer migrations, and is a critical aspect of feeding, reproduction and the ecology of many species. Despite the implications of collective motion for lifetime fitness, we know remarkably little about its energetics. It is commonly thought that collective animal motion saves energy: moving alone against fluid flow is expected to be more energetically expensive than moving in a group. Energetic conservation resulting from collective movement is most often inferred from kinematic metrics or from computational models. However, the direct measurement of total metabolic energy savings during collective motion compared with solitary movement over a range of speeds has yet to be documented. In particular, longer duration and higher speed collective motion must involve both aerobic and non-aerobic (high-energy phosphate stores and substrate-level phosphorylation) metabolic energy contributions, and yet no study to date has quantified both types of metabolic contribution in comparison to locomotion by solitary individuals. There are multiple challenging questions regarding the energetics of collective motion in aquatic, aerial and terrestrial environments that remain to be answered. We focus on aquatic locomotion as a model system to demonstrate that understanding the energetics and total cost of collective movement requires the integration of biomechanics, fluid dynamics and bioenergetics to unveil the hydrodynamic and physiological phenomena involved and their underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".