Uneven Walking is Challenging: step-ups or extended steps that is the question
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Uneven terrain presents significant challenges for walkers, resulting in increased energy expenditures. Given that Center of Mass (COM) work reflects this energy demand, it's reasonable to assume that individuals also seek strategies to minimize mechanical work. One such strategy involves deciding between extending step length to avoid terrain irregularities or simply traversing over them. Each approach carries its own mechanical cost, leading to the adoption of the less costly option. To investigate this, we conducted a simulation focusing on COM mechanical work under the assumption that gait energy is entirely provided through pre-emptive push-off. We examined the COM work required for step length extension, ranging from nominal to twice its magnitude, and compared it with the mechanical work needed for step-ups from zero to 0.05 m. The simulation revealed a critical threshold for a given walking velocity and perturbation amplitude: below it, extending step length was more favorable, while beyond it, landing atop perturbations became the preferred choice. As perturbation amplitude rose, the magnitude of the threshold also increased.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".