Absence of population asymmetry in the American Quarter Horse (<i>Equus ferus caballus</i>) performing skilled left and right manoeuvres in reining competition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of the right hand by humans for speech-related hand gestures, writing and throwing exemplifies motoric asymmetry. There are reports of asymmetry in many other animal species, including reports of left preference in emotional responsivity, spontaneous behaviour and the trained performance of the horse, Equus ferus caballus. The present study used the novel approach of using judges' scores to examine asymmetry in an equestrian event. The study analysed the scores of five judges evaluating the reining performance of 482, three-year-old American Quarter Horses competing in a major competition. Reining requires that the horses perform the manoeuvres of spin, circle and stop directed to either the left or right and symmetrical performance is featured in the judging criteria. The scores were sensitive to performance level, sex and manoeuvre, but there was no evidence of a population asymmetry in the left vs. right direction of the manoeuvres. The results are discussed in relation to need of using a large number of subjects in measuring asymmetry, the expression of individual vs. population asymmetry as a function of morphological and behavioural measures, and the influence of behavioural training on asymmetry.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".