Bipedal locomotion in birds: the importance of functional parameters in terrestrial adaptation in Anatidae
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The kinematic characteristics of a bird's walk vary according to whether the species is cursorial or not. To increase their speed, running birds increase the frequency of their movements, whereas non-running birds preferentially increase the amplitude. Previous studies have shown that these differences are accompanied by differences in posture; however, the observations were carried out on different species. Do these differences correspond to morphological differences linked to the history of the particular species, or do they reflect more effective solutions from a mechanical point of view? Two breeds of the duck Anas platyrhynchos platyrhynchos, the mallard and the Indian runner, which have different locomotor behaviours, are compared. The mallard is a dabbling duck with the typical horizontal duck posture, while the Indian runner is a terrestrial duck that carries its trunk very erect. The kinematic characteristics of the walks of both breeds were studied. The observed differences in posture between the mallard and the Indian runner have repercussions in the kinematic features of locomotion. The strategies used to increase speed differ in the two breeds: the mallard increases the amplitude of its movements, like other non-running birds, while the Indian runner increases the frequency of its movements, as cursorial birds do. Thus, behavioural adaptation to terrestrial locomotion is associated with functional adaptation (upright posture) that permits a more effective mechanical solution without requiring obvious morphological modifications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".