MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1547225577 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1632762

Isolating the effects of equine hoof shape measurements on capsule strain with finite element analysis

2003· article· en· W1547225577 on OpenAlexafffund
Heather L. McClinchey, J. C. Jofriet, J. J. Thomason

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsHoofCapsuleAnatomyHeelStrain (injury)Finite element methodToeMedicineBiomechanicsOrthodonticsStructural engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The shape of the equine hoof capsule affects how weightbearing forces are resisted by the capsule and are transmitted to deeper structures within the hoof. Our aim was to isolate the effects of several measurements describing hoof shape on strains and stresses in the hoof capsule. Multiple finite-element models are constructed with toe angles in the range 42° to 58°, heel angles from 34° to 50°, toe lengths of 8.5 to11.5 cm, and medial and lateral angles from 68° to 83°. Strain at the toe is inversely related to toe angle, and not strongly affected by heel angle; it increases with toe length distally on the toe, but decreases near the coronary border. Varying medial and lateral angles show that more upright walls have less strain at the quarters. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of finite element methods in complementing in vitro and in vivo studies of hoof mechanics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary and Comparative Orthopaedics and TraumatologySame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207