A test of the effect of hindlimb elongation on jumping performance using Longshanks mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is the first to study mammalian jumping performance at the population level by using a forward-engineered body plan. Jumping mammals, including jumping primates, have long hindlimbs relative to their forelimbs and relative to generalized quadrupedal species. The influence of hindlimb elongation on the dynamics of jumping has rarely been studied within a species, especially within mammals. The Longshanks mice, which were selectively bred for longer tibiae, allowed for a direct test of which aspects of jumping dynamics change when an animal has relatively longer hindlimbs. Longshanks mice voluntarily jumped higher than random-bred Control mice. Near behavioral maximum, Longshanks exerted lower maximal ground reaction forces than Control mice jumping to the same height. Using Longshanks, I was able to link hindlimb elongation with differences in hindlimb force generation that occur independent of muscular changes. These biomechanical data can help to understand the selective advantages that shaped the extreme elongation of hindlimbs in jumping primate species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".