Modification of the contact area of a standard force platform and runway for small breed dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a platform that used standard size force plates for large breed dogs to capture ground reaction force data from any size dog. METHODS: A walkway platform was constructed to accommodate two force plates (60 cm x 40 cm) positioned in series to a variety of smaller sizes. It was constructed from a custom wood frame with thick aluminium sheet force plate covers that prevented transfer of load to the force plate, except for rectangular windows of three different dimensions. A friction study was performed to ensure plates did not translate relative to one another during gait trials. A prospective, observational, single crossover study design was used to compare the effect of force platform configuration (full plate size [original plate], half plate size [modified plate]) on ground reaction forces using eight adult healthy Labrador Retriever dogs. RESULTS: Slippage of the steel plate on the force plate did not occur. Peak propulsion force was the only kinetic variable statistically different between the full size and half sized platforms. There were no clinically significant differences between the full and half force platforms for the variables and dogs studied. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The modified force platform allows the original 60 x 40 cm force plate to be adjusted effectively to a 30 x 40 cm, 20 x 40 cm and 15 x 40 cm sized plate with no clinically significant change in kinetic variables. This modification that worked for large breed dogs will potentially allow kinetic analysis of a large variety of dogs with different stride lengths.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".