Energetic costs of locomotion in bears: is plantigrade locomotion energetically economical?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Ursids are the largest mammals to retain a plantigrade posture. This primitive posture has been proposed to result in reduced locomotor speed and economy relative to digitigrade and unguligrade species, particularly at high speeds. Previous energetics research on polar bears (Ursus maritimus) found locomotor costs were more than double predictions for similarly sized quadrupedal mammals, which could be a result of their plantigrade posture or due to adaptations to their Arctic marine existence. To evaluate whether polar bears are representative of terrestrial ursids or distinctly uneconomical walkers, this study measured the mass-specific metabolism, overall dynamic body acceleration, and gait kinematics of polar bears and grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) trained to rest and walk on a treadmill. At routine walking speeds, we found polar bears and grizzly bears exhibited similar costs of locomotion and gait kinematics, but differing measures of overall dynamic body acceleration. Minimum cost of transport while walking in the two species (2.21 J kg−1 m−1) was comparable to predictions for similarly sized quadrupedal mammals, but these costs doubled (4.42 J kg−1 m−1) at speeds ≥5.4 km h−1. Similar to humans, another large plantigrade mammal, bears appear to exhibit a greater economy while moving at slow speeds.
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) | 0.002 | 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".