The crouching of the shrew: Mechanical consequences of limb posture in small mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important trend in the early evolution of mammals was the shift from a sprawling stance, whereby the legs are held in a more abducted position, to a parasagittal one, in which the legs extend more downward. After that transition, many mammals shifted from a crouching stance to a more upright one. It is hypothesized that one consequence of these transitions was a decrease in the total mechanical power required for locomotion, because side-to-side accelerations of the body have become smaller, and thus less costly with changes in limb orientation. To test this hypothesis we compared the kinetics of locomotion in two mammals of body size close to those of early mammals (< 40 g), both with parasagittally oriented limbs: a crouching shrew (Blarina brevicauda; 5 animals, 17 trials) and a more upright vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus; 4 animals, 22 trials). As predicted, voles used less mechanical power per unit body mass to perform steady locomotion than shrews did (P = 0.03). However, while lateral forces were indeed smaller in voles (15.6 ± 2.0% body weight) than in shrews (26.4 ± 10.9%; P = 0.046), the power used to move the body from side-to-side was negligible, making up less than 5% of total power in both shrews and voles. The most power consumed for both species was that used to accelerate the body in the direction of travel, and this was much larger for shrews than for voles (P = 0.01). We conclude that side-to-side accelerations are negligible for small mammals-whether crouching or more upright-compared to their sprawling ancestors, and that a more upright posture further decreases the cost of locomotion compared to crouching by helping to maintain the body's momentum in the direction of travel.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".