The converse effects of speed and gravity on the energetics of walking and 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
Abstract The energetic cost of transport for walking is highly sensitive to speed but relatively insensitive to changes in gravity level. Conversely, the cost of transport for running is highly sensitive to gravity level but not much to speed. Gait optimization with a minimally constrained bipedal model predicts a similar differential energetic response for walking and running even though the same model parameters and cost function are used for both gaits. This challenges previous assertions that the converse energetic responses are due to fundamentally different energy saving mechanisms in each gait. Our results suggest that energetics of both gaits are highly influenced by dissipative losses occurring as leg forces abruptly alter the center of mass path. The observed difference in energetic consequence of the performance condition in each gait is due to the effect the movement strategy of each gait has on the dissipative loss. The optimization model predictions are tested directly by measuring metabolic cost of human subjects walking and running at different speeds in normal and reduced gravity using a novel reduced gravity simulation apparatus. The optimization model also predicts other, sometimes subtle, aspects of gait such as step length changes. This is also directly tested in order to assess the fidelity of the model’s more nuanced predictions.
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