Kinematic analysis of Labrador Retrievers and Rottweilers trotting on a treadmill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to evaluate kinematic patterns in clinically normal Labrador and Rottweiler dogs trotting on a treadmill at a constant velocity. METHODS: Ten Labrador Retrievers aged from 2.2 to 5.1 years, and 10 Rottweilers aged from two to 5.9 years were used. A three-dimensional capture system was used to perform analysis of joint kinematics. Kinematic data were collected by use of a triple-camera system. The kinematic study was performed first on the right side of the dog, and then on the left side. Data were analysed by use of a motion-analysis program. Flexion and extension joint angles, angular velocity and angular acceleration were determined for the shoulder, elbow, carpal, hip, stifle, and tarsal joints. RESULTS: Within each group, the differences between the right and left limbs in all variables were not significant. Significant differences occurred between Labradors and Rottweilers in the following categories: angular displacement and minimum angular acceleration of the stifle (Rottweiler >Labrador); angular displacement and maximum angular velocity of the tarsus (Rottweiler >Labrador); minimum angular velocity of the shoulder (Labrador >Rottweiler); angular displacement, maximum angular acceleration, maximum angular velocity, and minimum angular velocity of the elbow (Labrador>Rottweiler); and maximum angle and maximum angular velocity of the carpus (Labrador>Rottweiler). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Both breeds had similar kinematic patterns, but there were magnitude differences, especially of the elbow and stifle joints. Therefore, each breed should have a specific database.
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 | 0.001 | 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".