Validation of two-dimensional kinematic analysis of walk and sit-to-stand motions in dogs
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
OBJECTIVE: To assess the intra- and interobserver repeatability of 2-dimensional (2-D) kinematic analysis of walk and sit-to-stand motions in dogs. ANIMALS: 10 healthy adult Labrador Retrievers. PROCEDURES: 10 dogs were filmed during walk and sit-to-stand motions. Five trials were recorded for each dog, 3 of which were digitized. Two observers manually marked 15 landmarks on each frame during the motions of interest for these 3 trials. Each observer repeated the procedure approximately 1 week later. The 2-D joint angles were calculated. Intra- and interobserver coefficients of multiple correlations (CMCs) were calculated for each joint angle-time history. RESULTS: Intraobserver repeatability, assessed as the mean CMCs of 12 joint angle measurements made for 10 dogs by 2 observers, was good or excellent in 23 of 24 (96%) mean CMCs of the joints measured. Interobserver variation, assessed by comparing CMCs of measurements made by 2 observers on 10 dogs on 2 days, was good or excellent in 161 of 240 (67%) CMCs of joints measured. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Intraobserver repeatability of 2-D kinematic measurements made on digitized videotapes was excellent. Interobserver repeatability of these measurements was acceptable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 it