Evaluation of the minimum energy hypothesis and other potential optimality criteria for human running
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
A popular hypothesis for human running is that gait mechanics and muscular activity are optimized in order to minimize the cost of transport (CoT). Humans running at any particular speed appear to naturally select a stride length that maintains a low CoT when compared with other possible stride lengths. However, it is unknown if the nervous system prioritizes the CoT itself for minimization, or if some other quantity is minimized and a low CoT is a consequential effect. To address this question, we generated predictive computer simulations of running using an anatomically inspired musculoskeletal model and compared the results with data collected from human runners. Three simulations were generated by minimizing the CoT, the total muscle activation or the total muscle stress, respectively. While all the simulations qualitatively resembled real human running, minimizing activation predicted the most realistic joint angles and timing of muscular activity. While minimizing the CoT naturally predicted the lowest CoT, minimizing activation predicted a more realistic CoT in comparison with the experimental mean. The results suggest a potential control strategy centred on muscle activation for economical running.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it