Mechanical behavior and quantitative morphology of the equine laminar junction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The horse's hoof is structurally modified for its mechanical functions, but studying the functional design of internal structures is hampered by the external keratinous capsule. Finite-element analysis offers one method for evaluating mechanical function of components within the capsule, such as the laminar junction. This is the epidermodermal connection that binds the hoof wall strongly to the distal phalanx. Primary epidermal laminae (PEL), projecting inward from the wall, vary in morphology and are remodeled despite being keratinous. The aim of this study is to investigate the suggestion that remodeling of PEL is influenced by mechanical stress. Circumferential and proximodistal stress distribution and relative displacement in the laminar junction are assessed by finite-element analysis (FEA) of nine hoof models. Spacing, orientation, and curvature of PEL are assessed from sections through 47 other hooves and compared with the stress and displacement data. Significant correlations are found between laminar spacing and seven displacement and stress variables, supporting the link between stresses and remodeling. Differences in external hoof shape cause regional variation in stress magnitudes around the laminar junction. This finding is in accord with previous observations that laminar morphology is individually regionally variable. This work provides the first concrete link between mechanical behavior and laminar morphology.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".