Effects of trial repetition, limb side, intraday and inter-week variation on vertical and craniocaudal ground reaction forces in clinically normal Labrador Retrievers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To document the contributions of trial repetition, limb side, and intraday and inter-week measurements on variation in vertical and craniocaudal ground reaction force data. METHODS: Following habituation, force and time data were collected for all four limbs of seven Labrador Retrievers during sets of five valid trot trials. Each set was performed twice daily (morning and afternoon), every seven days for three consecutive weeks. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to determine the effects of limb, trial, intraday, and inter-week factors on ground reaction force data for the thoracic and pelvic limbs. RESULTS: Of the four factors evaluated, variation due to trial repetition had the largest magnitude of effect on ground reaction forces. Trial within a set of data had an effect on all craniocaudal, but not vertical, ground reaction force variables studied, for the thoracic limbs. The first of five trials was often different from later trials. Some thoracic limb and pelvic limb variables were different between weeks. A limb side difference was only apparent for pelvic limb vertical ground reaction force data. Only pelvic limb craniocaudal braking variables were different between sets within a day. DISCUSSION AND CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When controlling for speed, handler, gait, weight and dog breed, variation in ground reaction forces mainly arise from trial repetition and inter-week data collection. When using vertical peak force and impulse to evaluate treatment, trial repetition and inter-week data collection should have minimal effect of the data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".