Phase shift between joint rotation and actuation reflects dominant forces and predicts muscle activation patterns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During behavior, the work done by actuators on the body can be resisted by the body's inertia, elastic forces, gravity, or viscosity. The dominant forces that resist actuation have major consequences on the control of that behavior. In the literature, features and actuation of locomotion, for example, have been successfully predicted by nondimensional numbers (e.g. Froude number and Reynolds number) that generally express the ratio between two of these forces (gravitational, inertial, elastic, and viscous). However, animals of different sizes or motions at different speeds may not share the same dominant forces within a behavior, making ratios of just two of these forces less useful. Thus, for a broad comparison of behavior across many orders of magnitude of limb length and cycle period, a dimensionless number that includes gravitational, inertial, elastic, and viscous forces is needed. This study proposes a nondimensional number that relates these four forces: the phase shift (ϕ) between the displacement of the limb and the actuator force that moves it. Using allometric scaling laws, ϕ for terrestrial walking is expressed as a function of the limb length and the cycle period at which the limb steps. Scale-dependent values of ϕ are used to explain and predict the electromyographic (EMG) patterns employed by different animals as they walk.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".