Runners do not push off the ground but fall forwards via a gravitational torque
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationship between the affect and timing of the four forces involved in running (gravity, ground reaction force, muscle force, and potential strain energy) is presented. These forces only increase horizontal acceleration of the centre of mass during stance but not flight. The current hierarchical models of running are critiqued because they do not show gravity, a constant force, in affect during stance. A new gravitational model of running is developed, which shows gravity as the motive force. Gravity is shown to cause a torque as the runner's centre of mass moves forward of the support foot. Ground reaction force is not a motive force but operates according to Newton's third law; therefore, the ground can only propel a runner forward in combination with muscle activity. However, leg and hip extensor muscles have consistently proven to be silent during leg extension (mid-terminal stance). Instead, high muscle-tendon forces at terminal stance suggest elastic recoil regains most of the centre of mass's height. Therefore, the only external motive force from mid-terminal stance is gravity via a gravitational torque, which causes a horizontal displacement. The aim of this paper is to establish a definitive biomechanical technique (Pose method) that is easily taught to runners (Romanov, 2002): falling forwards via a gravitational torque while pulling the support foot rapidly from the ground using the hamstring muscles.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it