Form in the context of function: Fundamentals of an energy effective striding walk, the role of the plantigrade foot and its expected size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What morphological and functional factors allow for the unique and characteristic upright striding walk of the hominin lineage? Predictive models of locomotion that arise from considering mechanisms of energy loss indicate that collision-like losses at the transition between stance limbs are important determinants of bipedal gait. Theoretical predictions argue that these collisional losses can be reduced by having "functional extra legs" which are physically the heel and the toe part of a single anatomical foot. The ideal spacing for these "functional legs" are up to a quarter of a stride length, depending on the model employed. We evaluate the foot in the context of the dynamics of a bipedal system and compare predictions of optimal foot size against empirical data from modern humans, the Laetoli footprint trackways, and chimpanzees walking bipedally. The dynamics-based modeling approach provides substantial insight into how, and why, walking works as it does, even though current models are too simple to make predictions at a level adequate to anticipate specific morphology except at the most general level.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".