Influence of individual competition level on back kinematics of horses jumping a vertical fence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: The costs and investments required for the purchase and training of showjumpers justify the need to find selection means for jumping horses. Use of objective kinematic criteria correlated to jumping ability could be helpful for this assessment. OBJECTIVES: To compare back kinematics between 2 groups of horses of different competition levels (Group 1, competing at high level; Group 2 competing at low level) while free jumping over a 1 m vertical fence. METHODS: Three-dimensional recordings were performed using 2 panning cameras. Kinematic parameters of the withers and tuber sacrale (vertical displacement, vertical and horizontal velocities), backline inclination and flexion-extension motion of the 3 main dorsal segments (thoracic, thoracolumbar and lumbosacral) were analysed. RESULTS: Group 2 horses had a lower displacement of their withers and tuber sacrale from the end of the last approach stride until the first departure stride (P<0.05). As a result, they increased the flexion of their thoracolumbar and lumbosacral junctions during the hindlimb swing phase before take-off (P<0.05). However, withers and tuber sacrale velocities were slightly modified. Group 1 horses pitched their backline less forward during the forelimb stance phase before take-off and straightened it more after landing (P<0.05), probably indicating a more efficient strutting action of their forelimbs. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Because significant differences in back motion were found between good and poor jumpers when jumping a 1 m high fence, criteria based on certain back kinematics can be developed that may help in the selection of talented showjumpers.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it