MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086580471 · doi:10.1002/ajpa.24122

Form in the context of function: Fundamentals of an energy effective striding walk, the role of the plantigrade foot and its expected size

2020· article· en· W3086580471 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physical Anthropology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRobotic Locomotion and Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBipedalismGaitSTRIDEContext (archaeology)FootprintMechanical energyComputer sciencePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBiologyPhysicsPaleontologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.224

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it