Ecomorphological correlates of grasping forces in strepsirrhine primates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Powerful digital grasping is essential for primates navigating arboreal environments and is often regarded as a defining characteristic of the order. However, in vivo data on primate grip strength are limited. In this study, we collected grasping data from the hands and feet of eleven strepsirrhine species to assess how ecomorphological variables—such as autopodial shape, laterality, body mass and locomotor mode—influence grasping performance. Additionally, we derived anatomical estimates of grip force from cadaveric material to determine whether in vivo and ex vivo grip strength measurements follow similar scaling relationships and how they correlate. Results show that both in vivo and anatomical grip strength scale positively with body mass, though anatomical measures may overestimate in vivo performance. Species with wider autopodia tend to exhibit higher grip forces, and forelimb grip forces exceed those of the hindlimbs. No lateralization in grip strength was observed. While strepsirrhine grip forces relative to their body weight are comparable to those of other primates and slightly exceed those of humans, they are not exceptional compared to other arboreal mammals or birds, suggesting that claims of extraordinary primate grasping abilities require further investigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".