Force overlap in trotting dogs: a Fourier technique for reconstructing individual limb ground reaction force
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Time overlap of ground reaction forces from adjacent footfalls is a pervasive problem in clinical gait analysis. When overlap occurs, splitting the fore- and hindlimb force curves at the minimum point between them underestimates hindlimb impulse and contact time. A better alternative is to reconstruct the force curves that occur in the period of overlap. A Fourier method was used to quantify the shape of hindlimb force curves in Labrador Retrievers and Greyhounds. Fourier coefficients did not differ significantly (p <0.05) between those breeds, indicating that, on average, their shapes are quite similar. The technique reported here uses an empirically determined shape that is, subsequently, scaled to the duration and magnitude of the original hindlimb force curve. A segment of this approximated force curve is then inserted in order to reconstruct the portion of the curve that was obscured by the overlap. Subtracting the reconstructed hindlimb curve, from the original force record, yields a reconstructed forelimb force curve.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".