The spatiotemporal richness of hummingbird wing deformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals exhibit an abundant diversity of forms, and this diversity is even more evident when considering animals that can change shape on demand. The evolution of flexibility contributes to aspects of performance from propulsive efficiency to environmental navigation. It is, however, challenging to quantify and compare body parts that, by their nature, dynamically vary in shape over many time scales. Commonly, body configurations are tracked by labelled markers and quantified parametrically through conventional measures of size and shape (descriptor approach) or non-parametrically through data-driven analyses that broadly capture spatiotemporal deformation patterns (shape variable approach). We developed a weightless marker tracking technique and combined these analytic approaches to study wing morphological flexibility in hoverfeeding Anna's hummingbirds (Calypte anna). Four shape variables explained >95% of typical stroke cycle wing shape variation and were broadly correlated with specific conventional descriptors such as wing twist and area. Moreover, shape variables decomposed wing deformations into pairs of in-plane and out-of-plane components at integer multiples of the stroke frequency. This property allowed us to identify spatiotemporal deformation profiles characteristic of hoverfeeding with experimentally imposed kinematic constraints, including through shape variables explaining <10% of typical shape variation. Hoverfeeding in front of a visual barrier restricted stroke amplitude and elicited increased stroke frequencies together with in-plane and out-of-plane deformations throughout the stroke cycle. Lifting submaximal loads increased stroke amplitudes at similar stroke frequencies together with prominent in-plane deformations during the upstroke and pronation. Our study highlights how spatially and temporally distinct changes in wing shape can contribute to agile fluidic locomotion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".